BackgroundRecent research has demonstrated that burnout is widespread among physicians, and impacts their wellbeing, and that of patients. Such data have prompted efforts to teach resilience among physicians, but efforts are hampered by a lack of understanding of how physicians experience resilience and stress. This study aimed to contribute to knowledge regarding how physicians define resilience, the challenges posed by workplace stressors, and strategies which enable physicians to cope with these stressors.MethodsA qualitative approach was adopted, with 68 semi-structured interviews conducted with Irish physicians. Data were analysed using deductive content-analysis.ResultsFive themes emerged from the interviews. The first theme, ‘The Nature of Resilience’ captured participants’ understanding of resilience. Many of the participants considered resilience to be “coping”, rather than “thriving” in instances of adversity. The second theme was ‘Challenges of the Profession’, as participants described workplace stressors which threatened their wellbeing, including long shifts, lack of resources, and heavy workloads. The third theme, ‘Job-related Gratification’, captured aspects of the workplace that support resilience, such as gratification from medical efficacy. ‘Resilience Strategies (Protective Practices)’ summarised coping behaviours that participants considered to be beneficial to their wellbeing, including spending time with family and friends, and the final theme, ‘Resilience Strategies (Attitudes)’, captured attitudes which protected against stress and burnout.ConclusionsThis study emphasised the need for further research the mechanisms of physician coping in the workplace and how we can capitalise on insights into physicians’ experiences of coping with system-level stressors to develop interventions to improve resilience.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3541-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate screening and progression of diabetic retinopathy during pregnancy in women with pregestational diabetes attending five antenatal centres along the Irish Atlantic seaboard. An adequate frequency of screening was defined as at least two retinal evaluations in separate trimesters. Progression was defined as at least one stage of deterioration of diabetic retinopathy and/or development of diabetic macular edema on at least one eye. Women with pregestational diabetes who delivered after 22 gestational weeks (n = 307) were included. In total, 185 (60.3%) had an adequate number of retinal examinations. Attendance at prepregnancy care was associated with receiving adequate screening (odds ratio 6.23; CI 3.39–11.46 (P < 0.001)). Among those who received adequate evaluations (n = 185), 48 (25.9%) had retinopathy progression. Increasing booking systolic blood pressure (OR 1.03, CI 1.01–1.06, P = 0.02) and greater drop in HbA1c between first and third trimesters of pregnancy (OR 2.05, CI 1.09–3.87, P = 0.03) significantly increased the odds of progression. A significant proportion of women continue to demonstrate retinopathy progression during pregnancy. This study highlights the role of prepregnancy care and the importance of close monitoring during pregnancy and identifies those patients at the highest risk for retinopathy progression.

Junior doctors are regularly carrying out tasks related to end of life care, resulting in high levels of psychological distress. Further training and a change in culture are required.

PT programmes have been posited as an 'easy fix' to growing numbers of students. However, it is apparent that PT has substantial value outside of this. Future research that conducts economic evaluations of such programmes and that collects objective data on teaching quality and student learning would be of much interest.

Purpose of the studyTo examine junior doctors’ experience and perceptions of medical errors in which they had been involved.Study designA mixed-methods design, consisting of an error survey and critical incident technique (CIT) interviews, was used. The survey asked doctors in the first year of postgraduate training in Ireland whether they had made a medical error that had ‘played on (their) mind’, and if so, to identify factors that had contributed to the error. The participants in the CIT interviews were asked to describe a medical error in which they had been involved.ResultsA total of 201 out of 332 (60.5%) respondents to the survey reported making an error that ‘played on their mind’. 'Individual factors’ were the most commonly identified group of factors (188/201; 93.5%), with ‘high workload’ (145/201; 72.1%) the most commonly identified contributory factor. Of the 28 CIT interviews which met the criteria for analysis, ‘situational factors’ (team, staff, task characteristics, and service user factors) were the most commonly identified group of contributory factors (24/28; 85.7%). A total of eight of the interviews were judged by subject matter experts (n=8) to be of medium risk to patients, and 20 to be of high-risk to patients. A significantly larger proportion of high-risk scenarios were attributed to ‘local working conditions’ than the medium-risk scenarios.ConclusionsThere is a need to prepare junior doctors to manage, and cope with, medical error and to ensure that healthcare professionals are adequately supported throughout their careers.