HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Electronic Letters to:

Special articles: Sanju George, Ditesh Dhaya, and Femi Oyebode Five-year study (2000-2004) of trainees' publications in the Psychiatric Bulletin Psychiatr Bull 2006; 30: 306-308 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

The place of research in psychiatric training

Andy R Bickle   (9 August 2006)

The place of research in psychiatric training 9 August 2006
Andy R Bickle, SpR in Forensic Psychiatry East Midlands Centre for Forensic Mental Health, Leicester Send letter to journal: Re: The place of research in psychiatric training andy.bickle{at}gmail.com Andy R Bickle	Am I alone in feeling disappointed with the inclusion at the end of George et al's article 'Five-year study (2000-2004) of trainees' publications in the Psychiatric Bulletin' (PB (2006), 30, 306-308) of the throwaway remark: 'Although most SpRs vehemently argue for its continuation [continuation of a research day], it is probably time to re-evaluate its usefulness and consider alternatives'? This conclusion was not adequately supported by their findings and I find it concerning that an issue which would have great impact upon on training should be treated in such a cursory manner without balanced debate. In my view, time that is protected (at least in theory) for research serves a very useful purpose in training. Firstly, may I have the temerity to suggest that this time is used appropriately for many other things than just seeking publication in the Psychiatric Bulletin? Aside from submitting publications to other journals, many SpRs, for example, complete MScs or higher degrees with research components in a range of subjects which benefit their training and ultimately their current and future organisations. Secondly, even on its own terms the paper seems to contradict itself in concluding that trainees contribute substantially to the Psychiatric Bulletin before going on to question the usefulness of trainees having a research day. Finally, the paper mentions only in passing the current arrangements whereby SpRs have a research day, but SHOs do not. The study’s own results are that SpRs authored nearly four times as many papers as SHOs during the period examined. Might not it have been hypothesised that at least one reason for this disparity is SpRs having regular time to engage in research? In the absence of any clear and detailed proposals from the College about what will replace higher training after August 2007, rumours abound. One such intimation has been that a greater proportion of the working week will be spent in pure service provision at the expense of apparently indulgent activities such as research. It would be a shame if such comments as these were seized upon by those who would prefer to reduce the variety of psychiatric training and still more so if they mirrored opinions formed at the College before adequate consultation with its members.