Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-bj4tz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-27T22:08:27.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Radical Improvements to the Fourth Year Medical Student Experience Whilst on Placement at Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Joanna Pegg
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Amar Hujan
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Thomas Lowde
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Annabel Ariyathurai
Affiliation:
Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom
Devika Patel
Affiliation:
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: Feedback was collected from students at Black Country Healthcare Foundation Trust to survey their satisfaction with their psychiatry placement which has been changed from nine weeks to five and had moved away from a carousel system to allow independent learning for students. Primary aim was to assess student satisfaction with secondary aims to improve access to a broader knowledge of sub-specialities.

Methods: Resident doctors collaborated with the medical student tutor and an initial feedback from students was gained. A plan was formulated to deliver a trust-specific 3-week teaching programme. We created a new improved handbook with opportunities for students to attend sub-specialities.

Suggestions for improvement were collated from each set of new medical students and some from previous years with this updated at the end of each rotation. We also had regular meetings with stakeholders to monitor progress and appointed medical student champions as a way of linking up with each new cohort more easily.

Feedback was collated at the end of each placement and was acted on in real time prior to the next cohort of students starting. There were 5 cohorts of students that were asked to provide feedback across 10 qualitative and quantitative questions within Microsoft Forms.

Results: Initial results showed 64% of students were dissatisfied with the induction process in the first rotation. 45% of people were unhappy with the bedside teaching. Organisation of the sub-specialities was not consistent across the trust. Both positives and negatives were highlighted and tracked. Trends of responses were monitored compared against both time and site (as students were placed across three sites) and acted upon to create an atmosphere of constant improvement and was correlated against informal conversations. After changes were made students were 50% more satisfied with the placement and standard of bedside teaching.

Conclusion: We acted on general themes from the feedback. We concluded that introducing an induction programme to explain placements and reiterate safety would improve the programme. There was increased time on the wards, direct patient contact and sub-speciality experiences. Feedback following changes showed improvement. Improvements in student-focused teaching were seen with better knowledge gained from small group teaching and 3 structured sessions included throughout. Core trainees will continue to reassess on a 5 weekly basis and make changes to the programme accordingly.

Information

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.