Statistics from Altmetric.com
In the UK, 10% of trainee doctors are out of clinical practice at any given time, for reasons including personal health, carer duties, further education, research and parental leave.1
Doctors report that leaving work often invokes feelings of isolation and sadness, as well as concerns around a lack of support from colleagues and organisations, and even negative views from their families.1 Self-stigmatisation sees doctors internalise negative views about themselves, promoting self-esteem issues and a lack of help-seeking behaviour, which also relates to the constructs of personal and professional identity.2 Addressing and tackling the barriers related to returning to work is not only beneficial for a doctor’s well-being but for patient care too. One systematic review found that doctors with higher occupational well-being adhere more to treatment guidelines, are more optimistic and helpful, and direct more attention to patient’s psychosocial health.3
Although programmes exist to support returning doctors, there is a shortage of evidence-based interventions. This report outlines a training intervention and subsequent evaluation for returning healthcare professionals, in which they can develop their clinical skills and needs as well as their own psychosocial skills and needs.
The 4-day course aimed to update doctors returning to work on their clinical skills and knowledge, while creating an open space to address personal and psychosocial needs regarding returning (see table 1 for learning activities and scenarios). The course was delivered in a simulation centre in South London, with each day lasting approximately 8 hours, by a multiprofessional faculty of clinical educators and simulation experts, including doctors, nurses and …
Contributors ZJ, MC, CT, CLC, WE, JB, CA: contributed to the design and delivery of the project; inputted to the final manuscript before submission. AS and CA: led on drafting the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethical approval for the study was provided by the Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Subcommittee at King’s College London on behalf of the Health Research Authority. The cited information (table 1 scenarios) is not from an actual patient. Any resemblance to real person living or deceased will be coincidence.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.