A Recognition Survey by Psychiatry Residents and Psychiatrists Regarding the Quality of Residency Training and Clinical Competence in Korea

Abstract

Objectives This study surveyed the quality of the residency training program and clinical competence of Korean psychiatry residents and psychiatrists Methods Questionnaires regarding the quality of residency training and clinical competence were administered to Korean psychiatry residents (n=102) and psychiatrists (n=157). The authors analyzed the quality of training education according to the training environment and the correlation between the quality of training and the self-assessment competence level. ResultsThe average score of the quality of training evaluated by the residents (n=102) was 3.57 (±1.00). Groups with more than or equal to three residents (annual) scored higher (3.69±1.03) than the groups with less than or equal to two residents (3.52±0.99). Groups with more than or equal to seven teaching psychiatrists scored higher (3.42±1.03) than the groups with less than or equal to six teaching psychiatrists (3.42±1.03). The quality of training and self-assessment competence showed a significant static correlation in the residents (R 2 =0.488, p<0.01) and psychiatrists (R 2 =0.508, p<0.01). ConclusionThis study shows that the quality of residency education varies according to the clinical area and the environment. The importance of training education is emphasized by the static correlation between the quality of education and clinical competence.

A Delphi Study to Validate the Patient-Centered Doctor’S Competency Framework in Korea

“…In 2019, the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced an outcome-based approach to residency training [6]. However, research on the actual training programs and the identification of competencies within residency training has been sporadic [7,8]. Recognizing the need to investigate the competencies of Korean doctors beyond undergraduate education and specialty training, the "Korean Doctor' s Role" was established in 2014 through policy research [9].…”