Working conditions survey and trainees situation: New approach to auditing the situation of European trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology ten years later

Postgraduate medical education in obstetrics and gynaecology: Where are we now and what do we need for the future? A study on postgraduate training in obstetrics and gynaecology in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

Objective: In this study, we aim to assess the current situation of postgraduate medical education in obstetrics and gynaecology in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In addition, we aim to determine transferable advantages amongst the countries. Study design: We performed a survey through a digital questionnaire with a total of 40 questions. The survey was advertised via communication channels of the German, Austrian and Swiss gynaecological societies; the participants were enrolled anonymously. Results: A total of 422 trainees took part in the survey. Differences within the three countries where found regarding the workload and the training of sub-specialties. Generally, the participants described to spend the majority of their daily working hours on documentation. Concerning assessment of current training regulations, more than half of trainees stated that they were actually faced with notable difficulties to fulfil the required obligatory numbers of self-performed interventions being documented. When asked for their intrinsic feeling of safety, around two-third of trainees felt "confident to very confident" during standard interventions. These numbers were up to 12% higher in the group of trainees who experienced simulation training during their education. Conclusion: With the help of this survey, weak points can be identified such as workload and implementation of current training regulations. Projects and ideas as EBCOG PACT, EPAs, the reduction of bureaucracy through digitization and deepening skills through simulation make a valuable contribution to compensate for these deficits and to adapt to future requirements.

Major problems, current characteristics and future career plans of obstetrics and gynecology residents in Turkey

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current problems and future career plans of obstetrics and gynecology residents in Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a survey was conducted with 143 trainees from 25 cities in different regions of Turkey. The questionnaire, which was sent via e-mail to all available trainees, consisted of four parts: information on hospitals, number and variety of surgical interventions, scientific activities, and current problems. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants' responses.

RESULTS

The mean number of trainees in each hospital was 24 in education and research hospitals and 15 in university hospitals (p<0.001). Perinatology, oncology, and infertility clinics were present in about 70% of the hospitals, and there was no difference in this regard between public and university hospitals. Most trainees (68.5%) complained about being alone in an outpatient clinic. Third-year trainees from training and research hospitals performed a significantly higher number of vaginal births than those at universities (p=0.035). Most trainees complained about their workload during their residency in both training and research hospitals (74.4%) and university hospitals (66%). The three most common plans for the future were to attend a subspecialty program in the field of obstetrics and gynecology (28%), to pursue an academic career (23.1%), and to work in a private hospital (21%).

CONCLUSION

Extremely long work hours, excessive workload, many monthly duties, and lack of supervision at outpatient clinics were found to be the major problems of the obstetrics and gynecology residents in Turkey. The most common future plan of the residents was to attend a subspecialty program in the field of obstetrics and gynecology.

Workforce planning and training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology across Europe: A survey of national trainee societies

OBJECTIVE(S)

To describe the infrastructural differences in training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ObGyn) across Europe.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive web-based survey of 31 national ObGyn trainee societies representing the 30 member countries of the European Network of Trainees in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Answers were verified in a telephone interview and only countries which had completed the telephone interview were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 28 of 31 societies representing 27 countries (response rate 90%). The median formal duration of training was 5 years (range 4-7). There were mandatory requirements in addition to medical school graduation before specialisation could be started in 20 (71%) countries. The job opportunities after completion of training varied and included academic fellowships (n=21 [75%]), clinical fellowships/junior consultancy (n=21 [75%]), consultancy (n=11 [40%]), and private practice (n=23 [82%)]. Training and working as a specialist abroad was uncommon (≤20% in 21 [78%] and 26 [96%] countries respectively). Exams during ObGyn training were offered in 24 (85%) countries. Unemployment after completion of training was rare (<5% in 26 [93%] countries). Assessment of ObGyn specialists took place in 20 (71%) countries.

CONCLUSION(S)

The study illustrates that there are organisational variations in ObGyn training in Europe; A) The requirements to obtain a training post vary causing differences in the qualifications of trainees starting training. B) The duration of training varies. And C) newly trained specialists carry varying levels of responsibility. The results suggest that the content, organisation, and outcome of training differ across Europe. Differences due to political, social and cultural reasons are expected. However, further harmonisation of training across Europe still seems desirable in order to improve women's healthcare and facilitate the mobility of ObGyn trainees and specialists across Europe. There are currently several European initiatives, however, national and local measures are essential for training to improve.

Exploring the scope of practice and training of obstetricians and gynaecologists in England, Italy and Belgium: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

This study explores the scope of practice of Obstetrics and Gynaecology specialists in Italy, Belgium and England, in light of the growth of professional and patient mobility within the EU which has raised concerns about a lack of standardisation of medical speciality practice and training.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 29 obstetricians and gynaecologists from England, Belgium and Italy, exploring training and scope of practice, following a common topic guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded following a common coding framework in the language of the country concerned. Completed coding frames, written summaries and key quotes were then translated into English and were cross-analysed among the researchers to identify emerging themes and comparative findings.

RESULTS

Although medical and specialty qualifications in each country are mutually recognised, there were great differences in training regimes, with different emphases on theory versus practice and recognition of different subspecialties. However all countries shared concerns about the impact of the European Working Time Directive on trainees' skills development. Reflecting differences in models of care, the scope of practice of OBGYN varied among countries, with pronounced differences between the public and private sector within countries. Technological advances and the growth of co-morbidities resulting from ageing populations have created new opportunities and greater links with other specialties. In turn new ethical concerns around abortion and fertility have also arisen, with stark cultural differences between the countries.

CONCLUSION

Variations exist in the training and scope of practice of OBGYN specialists among these three countries, which could have significant implications for the expectations of patients seeking care and specialists practising in other EU countries. Changes within the specialty and advances in technology are creating new opportunities and challenges, although these may widen existing differences. Harmonisation of the training and scope of practice of OBGYN within Europe remains a distant goal. Further research on the scope of practice of medical professionals would better inform future policies on professional mobility.

Improving education under work-hour restrictions: comparing learning and teaching preferences of faculty, residents, and students

BACKGROUND

Faced with work-hour restrictions, educators are mandated to improve the efficiency of resident and medical student education. Few studies have assessed learning styles in medicine; none have compared teaching and learning preferences. Validated tools exist to study these deficiencies. Kolb describes 4 learning styles: converging (practical), diverging (imaginative), assimilating (inductive), and accommodating (active). Grasha Teaching Styles are categorized into "clusters": 1 (teacher-centered, knowledge acquisition), 2 (teacher-centered, role modeling), 3 (student-centered, problem-solving), and 4 (student-centered, facilitative).

STUDY DESIGN

Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (HayGroup, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and Grasha-Riechmann's TSS were administered to surgical faculty (n = 61), residents (n = 96), and medical students (n = 183) at a tertiary academic medical center, after informed consent was obtained (IRB # 06-0612). Statistical analysis was performed using χ(2) and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Surgical residents preferred active learning (p = 0.053), whereas faculty preferred reflective learning (p < 0.01). As a result of a comparison of teaching preferences, although both groups preferred student-centered, facilitative teaching, faculty preferred teacher-centered, role-modeling instruction (p = 0.02) more often. Residents had no dominant teaching style more often than surgical faculty (p = 0.01). Medical students preferred converging learning (42%) and cluster 4 teaching (35%). Statistical significance was unchanged when corrected for gender, resident training level, and subspecialization.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences exist between faculty and residents in both learning and teaching preferences; this finding suggests inefficiency in resident education, as previous research suggests that learning styles parallel teaching styles. Absence of a predominant teaching style in residents suggests these individuals are learning to be teachers. The adaptation of faculty teaching methods to account for variations in resident learning styles may promote a better learning environment and more efficient faculty-resident interaction. Additional, multi-institutional studies using these tools are needed to elucidate these findings fully.