Abstract
Aims and methodNon-medical staff are eligible to assess trainee doctors through mandatory workplace-based assessments (WPBAs). An anonymous questionnaire was given out to non-medical staff working with trainees in community and in-patient settings at Royal Blackburn Hospital. Our aims were to look at their awareness of and familiarity with assessor guidance, trainee competencies, training needs and assessors' views on completing these assessments.ResultsIn total 118 of 150 (79%) individuals returned a questionnaire and 89 WPBAs had been carried out. Most assessors were Band 6 (or equivalent) or below (53%). Most assessors had neither read any assessor guidelines (75%) nor were familiar with the competencies required of a doctor (76%). Although 79% felt that non-medical staff should be assessing trainee doctors, only 44% felt comfortable doing this. None had been trained and 92% felt this would help. Twenty WPBAs (excluding mini-peer assisted tools) were carried out by staff at Band 6 or below.Clinical implicationsNo respondents received guidance or training on being an assessor. This highlights the need for urgent action and delivery of training. This can easily be adapted from training packages developed for medical staff.
Highlights
Many assessors feel uncomfortable assessing aspects that they do not carry out themselves. We believe that this is one of the first studies looking at the views of non-medical staff about the mandatory workplace-based assessments (WPBAs) for trainees
Apart from the case-based discussions and mini-PATs, all other WPBAs require the presence of an assessor at the time of assessment
It is envisaged that more trainees will be requesting non-medical staff to complete their WPBAs
Summary
A total of 118 staff returned the questionnaire, out of 150 that were given out, representing a 79% return rate. The only WPBAs this group of staff completed were mini-PATs. Figure 2 depicts the responses on the questionnaire. Workplace-based assessments, other than mini-PATs, were filled out by staff who identified themselves as ‘Band 6 or below, or its equivalent’. These included Mini-ACEs (n = 10), case presentations (n = 3), directly observed procedural skills (n = 2), case-based discussion (n = 1), assessments of teaching (n = 1) and direct observation of non-clinical skills (n = 1). The trainees assessed by staff who were ‘Band 7 or equivalent’ included ST1-3/CT1-3 (n = 4), GP trainees (n = 3) and foundation year trainees (n = 4). Many assessors feel uncomfortable assessing aspects that they do not carry out themselves
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
