"You kind of want to fix it don't you?" Exploring general practice trainees' experiences of managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Much of a General Practitioner's (GP) workload consists of managing patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). GP trainees are often taking responsibility for looking after people with MUS for the first time and so are well placed to reflect on this and the preparation they have had for it; their views have not been documented in detail in the literature. This study aimed to explore GP trainees' clinical and educational experiences of managing people presenting with MUS. METHOD: A mixed methods approach was adopted. All trainees from four London GP vocational training schemes were invited to take part in a questionnaire and in-depth semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire explored educational and clinical experiences and attitudes towards MUS using Likert scales and free text responses. The interviews explored the origins of these views and experiences in more detail and documented ideas about optimising training about MUS. Interviews were analysed using the framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighty questionnaires out of 120 (67%) were returned and a purposive sample of 15 trainees interviewed. Results suggested most trainees struggled to manage the uncertainty inherent in MUS consultations, feeling they often over-investigated or referred for their own reassurance. They described difficulty in broaching possible psychological aspects and/or providing appropriate explanations to patients for their symptoms. They thought that more preparation was needed throughout their training. Some had more positive experiences and found such consultations rewarding, usually after several consultations and developing a relationship with the patient. CONCLUSION: Managing MUS is a common problem for GP trainees and results in a disproportionate amount of anxiety, frustration and uncertainty. Their training needs to better reflect their clinical experience to prepare them for managing such scenarios, which should also improve patient care.

Teaching about medically unexplained symptoms at medical schools in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are very common in primary and secondary care. They are often inappropriately managed, resulting in potential harm to patients as well as wasted resources. To bring about change, it is important that newly qualified doctors are equipped with the skills to manage MUS effectively. We do not know if and how this topic is currently taught at U.K. medical schools. AIM: To document whether, how and when this topic is currently taught in U.K. medical schools. To assess potential barriers to this teaching and consider how it can be improved. METHODS: A questionnaire survey emailed to GP and psychiatry teaching leads at all 31 U.K. medical schools. RESULTS: Responses received from 24/31 schools showed that MUS teaching across U.K. medical schools is very variable in terms of amount, method, assessment and integration of the teaching within the curriculum. Most respondents identified a need for a greater quantity of cross-discipline teaching and for greater value to be attributed to the topic. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent and disparate teaching across medical schools may lead to very variable practice amongst qualified clinicians. In order to overcome this, consensus is needed as to how and where in the undergraduate curriculum there should be teaching about MUS.

Does undertaking an intercalated BSc influence first clinical year exam results at a London medical school?

BACKGROUND: Intercalated BScs (iBScs) are an optional part of the medical school curriculum in many Universities. Does undertaking an iBSc influence subsequent student performance? Previous studies addressing this question have been flawed by iBSc students being highly selected. This study looks at data from medical students where there is a compulsory iBSc for non-graduates. Our aim was to see whether there was any difference in performance between students who took an iBSc before or after their third year (first clinical year) exams. METHODS: A multivariable analysis was performed to compare the third year results of students at one London medical school who had or had not completed their iBSc by the start of this year (n = 276). A general linear model was applied to adjust for differences between the two groups in terms of potential confounders (age, sex, nationality and baseline performance). RESULTS: The results of third year summative exams for 276 students were analysed (184 students with an iBSc and 92 without). Unadjusted analysis showed students who took an iBSc before their third year achieved significantly higher end of year marks than those who did not with a mean score difference of 4.4 (0.9 to 7.9 95% CI, p = 0.01). (overall mean score 238.4 "completed iBSc" students versus 234.0 "not completed", range 145.2 - 272.3 out of 300). There was however a significant difference between the two groups in their prior second year exam marks with those choosing to intercalate before their third year having higher marks. Adjusting for this, the difference in overall exam scores was no longer significant with a mean score difference of 1.4 (-4.9 to +7.7 95% CI, p = 0.66). (overall mean score 238.0 " completed iBSc" students versus 236.5 "not completed"). CONCLUSIONS: Once possible confounders are controlled for (age, sex, previous academic performance) undertaking an iBSc does not influence third year exam results. One explanation for this confounding in unadjusted results is that students who do better in their second year exams are more likely to take an iBSc before their third year.