Abstract
Aims and methodThe Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) is a process of checking and evaluating evidence of competency attainment collected by a trainee over the preceding year. There has been no study evaluating trainees' perception of this new process. Two cross-sectional electronic surveys were conducted a year apart in the north of England. Out of 92 psychiatry trainees 58 (63%) completed the survey in 2008; 60 (63%) out of 96 trainees completed the second round in 2009.ResultsOver the year there was a significant improvement in trainees' perception of the new process: 75% of respondents highlighted non-availability of a list of acceptable evidence for the portfolio in 2008, which reduced to 22% in 2009 (P <0.001). The percentage of trainees facing difficulty in accessing the electronic portal reduced from 73 to 28% (P <0.001). The trainees continued to express the need for explicit feedback at ARCP and improved training of the assessors in addition to other parameters.Clinical implicationsThe process of ARCP seems to have become robust over the year studied. There is scope for further refining of the process according to trainees' needs.
Highlights
The trainees continued to express the need for explicit feedback at Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) and improved training of the assessors in addition to other parameters
Clinical implications The process of ARCP seems to have become robust over the year studied
21% of the trainees faced no problem through the ARCP process in 2008, whereas 45% had no problem in 2009 (Fig. 1)
Summary
The survey included all the psychiatry trainees in the Northern Deanery in two successive years. In the 2009 survey, 45% of trainees found difficulties in getting colleagues to complete assessments on time (compared with 69% in 2008, P50.001) and 45% felt that their assessor was unsure about their expected competency at the stage of their training (not significantly different from the 2008 response of 56%). In both surveys there were a number of comments regarding the Assessment of Clinical Expertise being time-consuming and trainees finding it difficult to persuade their consultant supervisors to devote at least an hour of their clinical time to completing it. Some trainees felt disheartened by the lack of feedback subsequent to the ARCP, as they had received either none or a sheet of paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
