PB RCPsych Publications
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Psychiatric Bulletin (2005) 29: 231-232. doi: 10.1192/pb.29.6.231-c
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawrie, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lawrie, S. M.
Psychiatric Bulletin (2005) 29: 231-232
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists


Correspondence

The place of research in the training of psychiatrists

Stephen M. Lawrie, Sackler Senior Clinical Research Fellow

Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh EH10 5HF

Vassilas and Brown (Psychiatric Bulletin, February 2005, 29, 47-48) rightly state that very few consultants will be active researchers but that all require audit and critical evaluation skills. They go on to question whether one-fifth of higher training should be spent in research days of dubious benefit, and suggest that trainees might more profitably spend time in teaching and management. These are obviously important aspects of training, but I would suggest that they have less relevance to audit and appraisal than research. Indeed, it is all too often forgotten that clinical audit uses standard research methods and will generate unreliable results unless carefully designed (Lawrie & Sandercock, 2004).

One of the main problems with the higher trainees research day as it currently operates is that it is often inadequately organised and supervised. Most trainees would gain a lot more from a 4- or 6-month slot in full-time research as part of a research group, and this would constitute only a ninth or a sixth of a 3-year training programme. Such attachments could be allocated to those who requested them, as other training posts are at present. Overall, this would probably increase the numbers of psychiatrists with research skills; this would be important not only for audit but also for the promotion of research of direct clinical relevance. If our practice is to be influenced by more than politics and fashion, we need more research in psychiatry rather than less.

References

LAWRIE, S. M., SANDERCOCK, P. (2004) Epidemiology and research methods. In Companion to Psychiatric Studies (7th edn) (eds E. C. Johnstone, D. G. C. Owens, S. M. Lawrie, et al) pp. 65-184. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawrie, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lawrie, S. M.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals