Trainees need more psychiatric teaching sessions and role models: exposure to psychiatry in the Foundation Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method To determine the provision of teaching in psychiatry for foundation doctors up to the point of making specialty applications. Data for the cohort of foundation doctors entering training in 2010 were collected from teaching programmes across the Mersey Deanery and North Western Foundation Schools. Results In the 17 hospitals that provided data, ‘protected teaching’ totalled 2354 h; 1.8% of time was dedicated to psychiatry, with 4 hospitals providing no teaching on mental health topics. The mean duration of psychiatry teaching was higher in university teaching hospitals (3 h 34 min) than district general hospitals (2 h 57 min); and almost a quarter of teaching sessions were titled only ‘psychiatry’. Clinical implications For many foundation doctors their only experience of psychiatry will be through teaching sessions, and this is potentially the only time to change opinions and build interest in the specialty. Psychiatrists need to take a more active role in the provision of high-quality teaching for foundation doctors and become the visible role models which are currently lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".