Journal Article

317 Paediatric trainee Experience of multi-site Audit and Research (PEAR), a cross sectional London REACH network study

Loucaides Eva, Dore Rhys, D’Souza Michelle, Ghosh Neelakshi, Carr, Dominic

2023

Overview

ObjectivesThe RCPCH Progress+ curriculum mandates research and audit skills for all paediatric trainees. The London REACH (Research, Evaluation and Audit for Child Health) network1 aims to support trainees in gaining those valuable skills. We gathered cross-sectional data on London School of Paediatrics (LSP) trainees’ (1) existing experience of and (2) perceived access to research and multi-centre quality improvement projects.MethodsThe PEAR survey was designed by a subgroup of the REACH central committee and disseminated by NHSmail by local leads. All paediatric trainees in London were included including those OOP. Descriptive quantitative analysis of anonymised data was conducted via R and Excel. A qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken by three reviewers to identify shared themes throughout the open-ended questions.Results142 responses were received and categorised by demographic (age, gender, ethnicity, non-UK primary medical qualification) and training data (integrated academic training, subspecialty training, less than full time). 61.3% of trainees felt they had no capacity for research, whilst 35% found it difficult to identify research opportunities and supervisors. Whilst 98% of trainees demonstrated involvement in local quality improvement projects, only 33% had multi-site experience. Trainees reported conducting only 16% of research activity during paid time and 89% wanted more access to research during their training.Multiple trainee subgroups showed variable research involvement. Integrated academic trainees were more likely to have additional qualifications (100% vs 64%), oral presentations (100% vs 46%) and publications (90% vs 61%); and felt more able to identify research opportunities (80% vs 38%). Less than full time trainees were also more likely to have publications (75% vs 57%), despite fewer being able to identify research opportunities., Trainees with non-UK primary medical qualifications were less likely to have additional qualifications (47% vs 72%) or involvement in poster presentations (76% vs 90%).Qualitative analysis identified three key themes: recognising the importance of paediatric research, barriers to research within training, and wanting integrated research during training. Notable barriers included variable research culture and limitations in time and commitment.ConclusionsOverall, trainees desired greater involvement in research related activities, yet demonstrated difficulty in accessing opportunities. There was variability between subgroups in experiences and access. Subgroups with more protected research time, such as integrated academic trainees, were more likely to have greater academic attainment. Therefore, the provision of equitable access to research will require expansion of protected time for all trainees.Referencewww.reachnetworkldn.com

• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subject: Child Health / Pediatrics / Qualifications / Qualitative analysis / Quality control / Quality improvement / Research Opportunities / Trainees / Training