Clinical training of specialist registrars in neurology: the registrar's perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To find out how closely consultants supervise specialist neurology registrars in different clinical settings (acute admissions, routine admissions, ward referrals, new outpatients and old outpatients) and how much registrars value this supervision.

DESIGN

Questionnaire asked: how often clinical assessments were done (from 'not done' to 'almost always'); how useful these were for training (from 'not useful' to 'very useful').

SUBJECTS

Distributed via regional education supervisors to registrars in their region.

RESULTS

Sixty-one responses from 88 distributed questionnaires (69%). Acute admissions were closely supervised (> 80%) and valued as training. Routine admissions and ward referrals were less frequently reviewed, though review was valued. New outpatients were reviewed 'infrequently' or 'not at all' in 65%, though review was valued for training (> 80%). Old outpatients were less frequently reviewed but this was less valued.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient supervision of neurology trainees is close and valued by trainees, though review of ward referrals is often a missed opportunity for training. Outpatient supervision is limited, though highly valued by trainees. Time needs to be made available within the outpatient clinic to allow supervision and training.