Career intentions and choices of paediatricians entering training in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The paediatric workforce has grown substantially in recent years. Roles have changed considerably with the introduction of working time legislation and a move towards a trained doctor solution. By gaining a better understanding of paediatric trainees' career intentions, this study aims to assess whether the right workforce is being trained to meet the future demand for paediatric services in the UK. METHOD: A survey was sent to paediatric specialist trainees, when they were expected to have completed their 1st year of Specialty Training or Fixed Term Specialty Training Appointments, in 2009 (part 1). A second survey was sent to the same cohort when they were expected to have completed their 3rd year in 2011 (part 2). RESULTS: In part 1 of the survey, the response rate was 79.1%. In part 2 the response rate was 80.5%. Of those who had responded to part 1, 87.4% also responded to part 2. The attrition rate of trainees leaving the paediatric training scheme between the 1st year and 3rd year of training was 15%. Of those still training in paediatrics after the 3rd year, 38.7% intended to be subspecialty paediatricians, 25.7% general paediatricians, 5.4% community paediatricians and 3.5% academic paediatricians. 26% were undecided and 0.6% did not intend to follow a career in paediatrics at all. The proportion of trainees who were undecided about their career intentions had risen substantially from 7.7% after the 1st year. There was a decrease in trainees' confidence in obtaining a consultant post between the 1st year and the 3rd year. CONCLUSIONS: Workforce planning is a complex task and this study shows that trainees will change their career plans while progressing through their run-through programmes. A better understanding of these factors will enable the Royal College of Paediatrics and Chld Health to deliver the right workforce for the UK.

Understanding neonatal jaundice: UK practice and international profile.

Over the last 25 years there have been considerable advances in the treatment and technologies used in the care of newborn infants. Most of these advances are related to the care of the premature infants and there have been few changes in the management of conditions commonly seen in term infants. Neonatal jaundice is one of the commonest neonatal disorders and has been recognized since early history. Early neonatal jaundice is usually caused by the physiological destruction of red blood cells in the infant and its importance lies in the ability of the bilirubin pigment so produced to cross the blood brain barrier resulting in neurotoxicity. Prolonged neonatal jaundice (after 14 days of age) may be an indication of an underlying liver disorder. The approach to neonatal jaundice has remained largely unchanged over the last two to three decades. We continue to rely on visual inspection to assess the severity of early neonatal jaundice. We have technology that is effective in reducing the level of bilirubinaemia but in the UK there is no clear consensus as to the level at which jaundice should be treated. We do not have a standardized approach to the management of prolonged jaundice and there is potential for infants with significant liver problems to be diagnosed at a relatively late stage. Some countries (for example the US) have professional bodies who have introduced guidelines to ensure a standardized approach to the jaundice infant. We have little information about neonatal jaundice treatment in other parts of the developing world.

Critical overview of the management of neonatal jaundice in the UK.

AIM: To determine the current management of early neonatal jaundice in the UK and to evaluate whether the current practices are evidence based. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was carried out among identified lead paediatricians of neonatal intensive care units. RESULTS: The survey found markedly differing practices for the recognition, investigation and treatment of neonatal jaundice. This applies particularly to confirmation of the clinical suspicion of jaundice; use of invasive and non-invasive technologies for diagnosis; preferred wavelength and intensity of light used for treatment; and whether birth weight, gestational age and postnatal age should influence treatment. CONCLUSION: The study found a lack of consistency in the management of jaundiced infants in the UK. The evidence-based practice currently available does not appear to have been incorporated into treatment protocols.