Stress, burnout, depression and work satisfaction among UK anaesthetic trainees – a response

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Wainwright et al. 1 looking at the factors impacting ‘stress, burnout, depression and work satisfaction’ in anaesthetic trainees, which we discussed as part of our local journal club. As a group of trainees of varying grades in the North West of England, it was fantastic to read about the efforts being made to better understand the problems affecting the morale and well-being of trainees. This article perfectly complemented the study by Looseley et al. 2, published in the same issue, and we felt that the benefits of a qualitative approach were well demonstrated in their findings. We were also particularly impressed by the inclusion within the study protocol of a process for supporting trainees who were identified as experiencing serious welfare concerns. Many of the observed themes the authors described resonated with us, in particular the observation of the significant impact of non-clinical commitments. The further discussion around the allocation of designated supporting professional activities (SPA) time for trainees is an idea that we would support, as has also been discussed in the recent Royal College of Anaesthetists report on the topic 3. We await with interest the new anaesthetic curriculum and its guidance on this, even though the challenge of maintaining adequate clinical training time is clearly an important factor. The concept of a ‘cultural shift’ in being able to discuss ideas such as burnout and stress was also a very important theme for us, although we have noted impressive work already being done in this regard, both in our own region and nationally within anaesthesia. We did wonder if the authors could have provided more focus on the ‘finding it easier’ cohort of trainees than they did, with only two trainees being included, or perhaps even more ‘neutral’ trainees. We were concerned that this may have the potential to skew the narrative towards the negative aspects of the training programme, without as much exploration of the potential protective factors, even though these were still discussed by the trainees interviewed. We wondered whether the authors felt that this was a cohort of trainees that may have been under-represented in this study, and whether they could provide further valuable insight into the challenges faced by anaesthetic trainees currently. Once again, we would like to thank them for their excellent work on this important topic.