RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2002;95:612-613
doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.12.612
© 2002 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bache, J.
Right arrow Articles by Graham, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
J R Soc Med 2002;95:612-613
© 2002 The Royal Society of Medicine

In-training assessment for specialist registrars: views of trainees and trainers in the Mersey Deanery

John Bache FRCS   Jeremy Brown PGCE     David Graham MD FRCP  

Mersey Deanery, Hamilton House, 24 Pall Mall, Liverpool L3 6AL, UK

Correspondence to: Mr John Bache FRCS, Deputy Postgraduate Dean

Annual review of specialist registrars and production of a record of in-training assessment (RITA) is a mandatory component of training that has attracted criticism. Mersey Deanery has established a system of review that includes wider evaluation of the trainee's needs and of training requirements. We conducted a survey to ascertain whether this broadened review process was thought beneficial. In one year 1093 questionnaires were distributed to trainees and trainers.

605 (81%) of 744 trainees and 309 (89%) of 349 trainers responded. At least 89% of both groups said that the procedure had been effective in reviewing the previous year and the most recent post and in identifying training requirements. More than 90% rated the overall process positively. Trainees particularly appreciated the advice on future training, on careers and on research.

This form of review is expensive in consultant time but was valued by both trainees and trainers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JRSMHome page
J S Sprigge, J Higgins, B Rice, L Tofield, and D Graham
Appraisal, assessment and career development for doctors in training: the Mersey Deanery personal development portfolio.
J R Soc Med, October 1, 2006; 99(10): 521 - 526.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JRSMHome page
P. Leaver
The purpose of RITA
J R Soc Med, February 1, 2003; 96(2): 103 - 103.
[Full Text] [PDF]



MDU Exam Doctor