4.6 Article

A new tool to evaluate postgraduate training posts: the Job Evaluation Survey Tool (JEST)

Journal

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-210

Keywords

Evaluation of training; Quality management; Quality assurance; Training posts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Three reports in 2013 about healthcare and patient safety in the UK, namely Berwick, Francis and Keogh have highlighted the need for junior doctors' views about their training experience to be heard. In the UK, the General Medical Council (GMC) quality assures medical training programmes and requires postgraduate deaneries to undertake quality management and monitoring of all training posts in their area. The aim of this study was to develop a simple trainee questionnaire for evaluation of postgraduate training posts based on the GMC, UK standards and to look at the reliability and validity including comparison with a well-established and internationally validated tool, the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM). Methods: The Job Evaluation Survey Tool (JEST), a fifteen item job evaluation questionnaire was drawn up in 2006, piloted with Foundation doctors (2007), field tested with specialist paediatric registrars (2008) and used over a three year period (2008-11) by Foundation Doctors. Statistical analyses including descriptives, reliability, correlation and factor analysis were undertaken and JEST compared with PHEEM. Results: The JEST had a reliability of 0.91 in the pilot study of 76 Foundation doctors, 0.88 in field testing of 173 Paediatric specialist registrars and 0.91 in three years of general use in foundation training with 3367 doctors completing JEST. Correlation of JEST with PHEEM was 0.80 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis showed two factors, a teaching factor and a social and lifestyle one. Conclusion: The JEST has proved to be a simple, valid and reliable evaluation tool in the monitoring and evaluation of postgraduate hospital training posts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available