So much more than a necessary evil? Lessons from a study following the implementation of recognition of trainers

Abstract

Background: The UK General Medical Council (GMC) now requires that trainers in specified roles be "recognised" by evidencing training (General Medical Council, 2012), with wide variation across the UK in implementation. This study aimed to understand the impact on established local educators of this mandatory requirement but also to investigate how our faculty development programme (the Clinical Educator Programme-CEP) can optimise this process for future trainers. Literature review found little published work on the Framework Standards used for this process. Methods: From a pragmatic stance, case study methodology was used allowing for mixed methods of data collection (online survey and focus groups) and "insider research" (Unluer, 2012). Consultants holding a named role (n=875) as defined by the GMC (2012, p.15) were sampled. Results: Of the 28% who responded, the majority (83.3%) were clinical supervisors (n=204). 77.6% were registered on the Faculty Development Programme (CEP, n=190), most stating they registered because of Recognition of Trainers (RoT) (n=107). Demonstrable differences were found between CEP participants and others and between those registered for personal developmental reasons when compared to those who gave RoT as their only reason. This included potential benefits and risks of the process. Ten themes emerged including "a necessary evil". Support for CEP contributing to a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) was found. Mandatory requirements should not detract from professionalization of medical education, yet this study found just over half of respondents were supportive of the implemented process (51.8%). Conclusion: Further support is needed to help clinical educators understand the potential benefits of ongoing educational CPD.

Developing and Recognising Undergraduate Medical Educators in a UK Medical School - A Case Study

“…The RoT process has been introduced by the GMC as a measure to “improve the standard of medical training” ( Rimmer, 2015 ). However, it has caused mixed emotional responses, with some trainers reporting feeling demoralised and demotivated ( Crichton and Jones, 2018 ). In this article, we described approaches adopted by the School of Medicine, University of Dundee to support undergraduate medical educators to fulfil the RoT requirements.…”