Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Paediatric Training (paediatric + training)
Selected AbstractsPaediatric training for family doctors: principals and practiceMEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 5 2002C Melville Background There is controversy as to how best to train general practitioners for the paediatric challenges they will meet in practice, in particular what should be included in training, what should be left out and how long should it last? Subjects and methods All 615 general practice principals referring to 6 hospitals were surveyed (40% response rate). Setting West Midlands region of England. Study design Postal questionnaire. Statistics Quantitative and qualitative assessment of responses. Quantitative responses were analysed by hospital, decade of qualification, and duration of paediatric training. Qualitative responses were analysed using grounded theory. Results Satisfaction with training was directly related to its duration, with low levels of satisfaction for less than 6 months paediatrics, moderate levels for 6,11 months, and high levels with 12 months or more. The most important item of training was recognition of the sick child. Acute and chronic paediatrics was generally well covered. Psychosocial aspects, public health and immunisation were poorly addressed. Neonatal resuscitation and first day checks were seen as relevant, but neonatal intensive care was not. Conclusions At least 6 months of paediatrics is necessary for GPs in training, but longer paediatric exposure further increases their satisfaction with training. GPs have a biopsychosocial rather than biomedical approach to their child patients, suggesting potential benefits from a greater emphasis on psychosocial and public health aspects at the expense of neonatal intensive care. Recognition of the sick child is essential, and acute and chronic organic illness should be covered in breadth. Possible future models for GP training in paediatrics are discussed. [source] Developmental assessment of children: A survey of Australian and New Zealand paediatriciansJOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH, Issue 8 2005Sean Beggs Objectives: To determine the current practice for developmental assessment of children by Australian and New Zealand paediatricians. To determine factors associated with higher levels of self-reported confidence and expertise in developmental paediatrics and factors associated with better practice. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of Australian and New Zealand paediatricians conducted in 2003, enquiring about their training in developmental paediatrics and their practice for evaluating development. Results: Of 811 questionnaires sent, 590 (73%) were returned. Ninety-one respondents indicated that they did not see children with developmental issues leaving 499 surveys for analysis. The overwhelming majority of paediatricians felt that more training was required in developmental paediatrics (88%) and that there was a need to be taught a formal developmental assessment tool (83%). Higher self-ratings of confidence and expertise in developmental paediatrics were associated with a period of formal developmental training (OR (95% CI) 2.7 (1.6,4.4), 3.4 (2.0,5.8), respectively), and being taught a formal developmental assessment tool (OR (95% CI) 2.0 (1.2,3.2), 2.2 (1.3,3.7), respectively). Predictors of paediatricians performing a formal developmental assessment included formal developmental training (OR (95% CI) 2.0 (1.1,3.8)) being taught an assessment tool (OR (95% CI) 2.8 (1.5,5.2)) and mandatory training (OR (95% CI) 2.4 (1.4,4.1)). Conclusions: Developmental paediatrics is a significant and important part of paediatric practice. This survey suggests, however, that paediatric training and continuing education should have not reflected this practice. The overall method and content of developmental training including whether formal assessment tools should be taught needs to be reviewed and revised. [source] Paediatric training for family doctors: principals and practiceMEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 5 2002C Melville Background There is controversy as to how best to train general practitioners for the paediatric challenges they will meet in practice, in particular what should be included in training, what should be left out and how long should it last? Subjects and methods All 615 general practice principals referring to 6 hospitals were surveyed (40% response rate). Setting West Midlands region of England. Study design Postal questionnaire. Statistics Quantitative and qualitative assessment of responses. Quantitative responses were analysed by hospital, decade of qualification, and duration of paediatric training. Qualitative responses were analysed using grounded theory. Results Satisfaction with training was directly related to its duration, with low levels of satisfaction for less than 6 months paediatrics, moderate levels for 6,11 months, and high levels with 12 months or more. The most important item of training was recognition of the sick child. Acute and chronic paediatrics was generally well covered. Psychosocial aspects, public health and immunisation were poorly addressed. Neonatal resuscitation and first day checks were seen as relevant, but neonatal intensive care was not. Conclusions At least 6 months of paediatrics is necessary for GPs in training, but longer paediatric exposure further increases their satisfaction with training. GPs have a biopsychosocial rather than biomedical approach to their child patients, suggesting potential benefits from a greater emphasis on psychosocial and public health aspects at the expense of neonatal intensive care. Recognition of the sick child is essential, and acute and chronic organic illness should be covered in breadth. Possible future models for GP training in paediatrics are discussed. [source] The role of the adult urologist in the care of children: findings of a UK surveyBJU INTERNATIONAL, Issue 1 2001D.F.M. Thomas Objective To document the current role of adult urologists in the care of children in the UK and to consider the future provision of urological services for children within the context of published national guidelines. Methods A detailed postal questionnaire was sent to all 416 consultant urologists listed as full members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons and resident in the UK. The range of information sought from each urologist included details of personal paediatric training, scope of personal practice, and information about facilities and provision of urological services for children in their base National Health Service hospital. Results The response rate was 69%; most consultant urologists (87%) in District General Hospitals (DGHs) undertake paediatric urology, mainly routine procedures of minor or intermediate complexity. Of urologists in teaching hospitals, 32% treat children but their involvement is largely collaborative. Consultants appointed within the last 10 years are less willing to undertake procedures such as ureteric reimplantation or pyeloplasty than those in post for ,10 years. Currently, 18% of DGH urologists hold dedicated children's outpatient clinics and 34% have dedicated paediatric day-case operating lists. Almost all urologists practise in National Health Service hospitals which meet existing national guidelines on the provision of inpatient surgical care for children. Conclusion Urologists practising in DGHs will retain an important role as providers of routine urological services for children. However, the tendency for recently appointed consultants to limit their practice to the more routine aspects of children's urology is likely to increase. Training and intercollegiate assessment should focus on the practical management of the conditions most commonly encountered in DGH practice. The implementation of national guidelines may require greater paediatric subspecialization at DGH level to ensure that urologists treating children have a paediatric workload of sufficient volume to maintain a high degree of surgical competence. [source] | ||||||||||