Procedural confidence in hospital based practitioners: implications for the training and practice of doctors at all grades
2009

Confidence in Medical Procedures Among Hospital Practitioners

Sample size: 181 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Rona M Connick, Peter Connick, Angelos E Klotsas, Petroula A Tsagkaraki, Effrossyni Gkrania-Klotsas

Primary Institution: Hinchingbrooke Hospital, University of Cambridge, Ipswich Hospital, Addenbrooke's Hospital

Hypothesis

What is the level of procedural confidence among hospital practitioners and what factors influence it?

Conclusion

Procedural confidence among hospital practitioners is influenced by gender and the number of procedures performed, with significant implications for medical training.

Supporting Evidence

  • 27% of responders were 'not at all confident' in performing procedures.
  • 41% of responders were female, showing no significant difference in confidence between genders.
  • Specialist registrars had the highest cumulative confidence scores.
  • Five key procedures were identified as essential for all doctors to perform competently.
  • Confidence scores peaked in the SpR grade and declined in consultant practice.

Takeaway

Doctors need to feel confident to do medical procedures, and this study found that how many procedures they've done and whether they're male affects their confidence.

Methodology

A cross-sectional observational study measuring procedural confidence through questionnaires distributed to hospital practitioners.

Potential Biases

Potential for systematic bias due to self-selection in responses.

Limitations

Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias and self-selection bias.

Participant Demographics

41% female, with a mix of specialties including internal medicine, surgery, and others.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.026 for gender, <0.001 for procedures performed in past year

Confidence Interval

1.04 – 1.85 for gender, 1.21 – 1.37 for procedures performed in past year

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1472-6920-9-2

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication