Abstract
Background Regional teaching programmes are a common method of delivering postgraduate medical education in the United Kingdom. There is limited evidence available to guide the development of a successful regional teaching programme.
Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed stakeholders including trainers and trainee anaesthetists using a combination of purposive and convenience sampling. Semi- structured interviews were conducted on Microsoft Teams in a focus group format. Data was transcribed, anonymised, coded and analysed using thematic analysis.
Findings All the college tutors and school board members for anaesthesia in the deanery, and five anaesthetic trainees at different training stages participated in the study in six focus groups. Analysis revealed concerns about the complicated nature of Stage 1 anaesthetic training and discussion about how the local training structure within the deanery could be further impeding the delivery of support and education to Stage 1 anaesthetic trainees. Despite the challenges identified, trainers and trainees were optimistic about implementing a regional teaching programme for Stage 1 anaesthetists within the deanery.
Conclusions This study highlighted the challenges of delivering high-quality postgraduate education and training for Stage 1 anaesthetists in our deanery and considered possible solutions. The findings of this study informed the development of a quality improvement project to improve Stage 1 anaesthetic training in our deanery.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
AL is supported by a scholarship from the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford as a DPhil candidate, and was employed on a part time secondment as a Trainee Improvement Fellow to complete this work by Health Education England Thames Valley at the time of the study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
A detailed project proposal was submitted to the University of Oxford study classification group (consisting of Research Governance, Ethics & Assurance and research and development team members) and classified as service evaluation in December 2022. Ethical approval is not necessary for service evaluation studies. The study was registered as a trainee improvement project with Health Education Thames Valley.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
