|
The Profession
Job-sharing in paediatric training in Australia: availability and
trainee perceptions
Charlotte M Whitelaw and Margot C Nash
MJA 2001; 174: 407-409
For editorial comment, see Sewell; see also Gun
Abstract -
Methods -
Results -
Discussion -
References -
Authors' details
Register to be notified of new articles by e-mail -
Current contents list -
More articles on Education
|
Objective: To examine the current availability of
job-sharing in paediatric training hospitals in Australia and to
evaluate job-sharing from the trainees' perspective.
Design: National survey with structured telephone
interviews and postal questionnaires.
Setting: The eight major paediatric training hospitals
in Australia.
Participants: Directors of Paediatric Physician
Training (DPPTs) at each hospital (or a staff member nominated by
them) provided information by phone interview regarding
job-sharing. All paediatric trainees who job-shared in 1998
(n = 34) were sent written questionnaires, of which 25
were returned.
Results: Hospitals differed in terms of whether a trainee
was required to give a reason for wishing to job-share, and what
reasons were acceptable. One hospital stated that two specialty
units (Intensive Care and Neonatal Intensive Care) were
excluded from job-sharing, and another stated that certain units
were unlikely to be allocated job-sharers. The remaining six
hospitals said that all units were available for job-sharing, but the
majority of their trainees disagreed. Only one hospital had a cap on
the number of job-share positions available yearly. Trainees
perceived benefits of job-sharing to include decreased tiredness,
increased enthusiasm for work, and the ability to strike a balance
between training and other aspects of life. Trainees believed
job-sharing did not adversely affect the quality of service provided
to patients, and that part-time training was not of lower quality than
full-time training.
Conclusions: Job-sharing in Australian paediatric training
hospitals varies in terms of the number of positions available,
eligibility criteria, and which units are available for
job-sharing. In our survey, trainees' experience of job-sharing was
overwhelmingly positive.
|
|
|
In Australia there is increasing interest in developing more
flexibility in the postgraduate training and work environments of
medical practitioners. Much of this interest comes from women, for
whom "access to flexible training and work opportunities emerges as
one of the most important determinants of career choice".1 In 1999, 70% of
final-year paediatric trainees were women and their average age was
35 (Gary Disher, Senior Executive Officer, RACP Medical Workforce
Advisory Committee, personal communication). It is likely that a
significant number of women are balancing training with family
commitments. A societal shift has also seen young male doctors
increasingly working part-time for family reasons,1 and doctors of
both sexes seeking part-time work for a variety of other reasons.
Flexible medical training is well established in the United
Kingdom,2-4 but relatively new in
medical training in Australia. Case reports of job-sharing (ie, two
people sharing the duties, responsibilities and benefits of one
full-time job) in Australia have been positive;5,6 a study by
Valentine and Martin7 found broad support for
job-sharing among medical staff in a Perth children's hospital.
All Australian medical colleges indicate that they offer part-time
training.1 The Royal Australasian
College of Physicians "strongly recommends" that basic paediatric
training (the first three years) be full-time, while, for advanced
training (the last three years), "work sharing is acceptable" and
"part-time training is available".8
We set out to determine what is currently available in terms of
job-sharing in paediatric training in Australia and whether
job-sharing is satisfactory from the trainees' perspective.
|
|
|
|
Setting |
The eight major paediatric training hospitals in Australia took part
in our study: The New Children's Hospital, John Hunter Hospital,
Sydney Children's Hospital (NSW); Royal Children's
Hospital/Monash Medical Centre (VIC); Adelaide Women's and
Children's Hospital/Flinders Medical Centre (SA); Princess
Margaret Hospital (WA); Royal Children's Hospital and Mater
Misericordiae Children's Hospital (QLD).
|
Interviews and questionnaires | |
We approached the Directors of Paediatric Physician Training
(DPPTs) at the eight major paediatric training hospitals. They (or a
staff member nominated by them) answered standard questions by phone
interview about job-sharing at their hospital.
We designed a trainee questionnaire (incorporating some of the
statements from a UK instrument9), which we sent to all
paediatric trainees who job-shared in Australia in 1998.
Multiple-choice and open questions were included. Responses to
statements regarding job-sharing were obtained using a five-point
Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or
strongly disagree. Responses were subsequently collapsed down to a
three-point scale (agree, neutral, or disagree). A pilot was
performed on job-sharers at our hospital. Confidentiality was
assured.
|
|
|
|
Trainee demographics | |
Twenty-five of the 34 trainees job-sharing in paediatrics in 1998
returned questionnaires (74% response rate). (No information is
available about non-respondents.) Twenty-three respondents were
female and 2 male; 11 were in basic training, 11 in advanced training,
and three were FRACP qualified but included because their job was
usually offered as a training position.
|
Job-share availability and eligibility | |
The results of the hospital survey are presented in Box 1. The DPPT
survey indicated that only one of the eight hospitals restricted the
number of job-share positions available per year. Only one hospital
formally excluded specific units (Intensive Care and Neonatal
Intensive Care) from job-sharing. At another hospital, although no
units were formally excluded, trainees had to get consultant
approval in advance (several consultants known to be "resistant"
were unlikely to be approached). The other six hospitals indicated
that all units were available for job-sharing; however, 10 of 17
trainees at these hospitals did not believe this.
Five of eight hospitals indicated that trainees were not required to
give a reason for wishing to job-share. Hospitals that required or
preferred to be given a reason tended to regard "childcare
responsibilities" as a more acceptable reason for job-sharing than
"exam preparation".
|
Reasons for job-sharing | |
When asked to cite their main reason for job-sharing, 13
trainees nominated childcare responsibilities, nine cited exam
preparation, and three gave other reasons: personal ill health,
desire for more leisure time, and completion of a Master of Public
Health degree.
|
Job-share history | |
The time trainees had spent job-sharing in paediatric training
positions to the end of 1998 varied from three to 36 months (mean, 18
months). Trainees sharing because of exam preparation shared for
shorter periods (mean, 11 months) than those sharing for childcare
reasons (mean, 25 months). Job-sharing had taken place in a variety of
non-surgical units: General Medicine, Emergency, Neurology,
Neonatology, Oncology, Gastroenterology, Endocrinology,
Community Medicine, Child Psychiatry, Renal Medicine, Cardiology,
Intensive Care, Rehabilitation, Metabolic Diseases, Respiratory
Medicine and Allergy/Immunology.
|
Sharing methods | |
Trainees were asked to describe the way they shared jobs in 1998 and to
comment on how well it worked for them. Several had used more than one
method during the year. Sharing patterns included the following (the
number of trainees who had used each method is given in brackets):
- three weeks on / three off (2);
- two weeks on / two off (5);
- one week on / one off (11);
- splitting the week (13).
Trainees sharing for 2-3-week blocks of time commented that there
were few continuity-of-care issues and that a block of time off
allowed for concentrated study or holidays (none of these trainees
were sharing for childcare).
All trainees who split the week were sharing for childcare reasons.
Some worked the same days each week (an arrangement they felt was
optimal for family routine/childcare), and some swapped days during
term (allowing for equal exposure to outpatient clinics, teaching
rounds, etc).
|
Trainees' perspective | |
Trainees' responses to statements regarding job-sharing are shown
in Box 2. Perceived benefits of job-sharing included decreased
tiredness, increased enthusiasm for work, and the ability to strike a
balance between training and other aspects of life. Trainees did not
believe job-sharing adversely affected the quality of service
provided to patients, or that part-time training was of lower quality
than full-time training. However, some felt that job-sharers were
viewed by consultants as "less committed" than full-time trainees.
Regarding attendance at educational sessions, six of the 13 trainees
sharing for childcare reasons believed they often missed sessions,
while only one of the nine trainees sharing for exam preparation
believed they did.
|
|
Discussion |
Successful job-sharing in a clinical training position must be of
educational value to the trainee, provide quality care to patients
and their families, and not have a negative impact on other staff. The
experience of the job-sharers in our survey was overwhelmingly
positive; however, the perceptions of trainees may be biased by the
considerable personal investment most have in their positions. It
should also be borne in mind that the accuracy of information provided
by DPPTs may vary according to their level of involvement with
job-sharing.
As the total number of respondents in our survey was small, any
conclusions must be somewhat tentative, but we believe some general
trends are clear.
The legality of requiring trainees to provide an "acceptable" reason
for wishing to work part-time is questionable; as is the practice of
giving trainees wishing to share for childcare reasons precedence
over trainees with other reasons for sharing.
Although most hospitals stated that all units were available for
job-sharing, the majority of their trainees disagreed. Perhaps
trainees are misinformed in some instances. An alternative and more
likely explanation is that hospitals, wishing to appear
progressive, claim that all units are available but do not appoint
job-sharers to reluctant consultants.
Trainees sharing for short periods (usually exam candidates) can
compensate for restricted opportunities when they return to
full-time training, but those sharing for longer periods (ie, those
with childcare responsibilities) can not. Trainees in the latter
group are also more likely to miss educational sessions, presumably
because family commitments prevent them from attending on certain
days.
Demand for flexible training arrangements is likely to rise in
future. Specialist medical colleges must become directly involved
in the development of flexible training positions rather than simply
providing reluctant permission. Hospitals must formulate clear
policies regarding job-sharing and make this information available
to prospective employees. Further evaluations of job-sharing are
needed to ensure arrangements are satisfactory for all concerned.
|
|
References |
- Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee. Influences on
participation in the Australian medical workforce. Sydney: AMWAC,
1998.
-
Goldberg I. Postgraduate medical education and flexible
training. Br J Hosp Med 1996; 56: 241-242.
-
Goldberg I, Paice E. New approaches to job sharing of training posts
in the North Thames region. Br J Hosp Med 1997; 58: 193-196.
-
Montgomery S. Part time work: one year's job share in Bristol.
BMJ 1984; 289: 1240-1241.
-
York J. Job sharing — it works! Fellowship Affairs. RACP.
1993; 12(1): 33.
-
Preston S. Job sharing — the trainee's perspective.
Fellowship Affairs. RACP. 1993; 12(1): 34.
-
Valentine J, Martin C. Job Sharing at a children's hospital. BMJ
1996; 312: 115-116.
-
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Requirements for
physician training guidelines. Sydney: RACP, 1998.
-
Fiander A. Evaluation of flexible senior registrar training in
obstetrics and gynaecology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 102:
461-466.
(Received 28 Aug 2000, accepted 18 Jan 2001)
|
| |
Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
Charlotte M Whitelaw, MB BS, B MedSc, Advanced Paediatric
Trainee; Margot C Nash, FRACP, MD, Director of Paediatric
Physician Training.
Reprints will not be available from the authors. Correspondence: Dr C
M Whitelaw, Department of General Paediatrics, Royal Children's
Hospital, Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC 3052.
©MJA 2001
Make a
comment
Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further
reproduction or distribution of the articles
should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For
permission, contact the
Australasian Medical Publishing Company.
Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/>
© 2001 Medical Journal of Australia.
|
| |
|
|
| 1: Availability of job-sharing positions for paediatric trainees in eight major Australian paediatric hospitals in 1998 |
| Hospital |
No. of job- sharers in 1998 |
No. of job-share positions avail- able yearly |
Units unavailable for sharing (DPPT response) |
|
| A |
12 |
No set limit |
ICU and NICU |
| B |
2 |
No set limit |
None |
| C |
0 |
No set limit |
At consultants' discretion |
| D |
6 |
No set limit |
None |
| E |
4 |
No set limit |
None |
| F |
4 |
2 |
None |
| G |
4 |
No set limit |
None |
| H |
2 |
No set limit |
None |
|
| |
|
No. of trainees who believe some units at their hospital unavailable (total respondents) |
Requirement for trainee to give reason for job- sharing (DPPT response) |
|
| 3 (8) |
No reason required |
| 0 (1) |
No reason required |
| na |
No reason required |
| 5 (6) |
No reason required |
| 3 (4) |
No reason required |
| 1 (2) |
Reason required |
| 0 (3) |
Reason preferred |
| 1 (1) |
Reason required |
|
| DPPT =
Director of Paediatric Physician Training. ICU = intensive care
unit. NICU = neonatal intensive care unit. na = not applicable. |
|
|
|
|
| Back to text |
| |
|
| 2: Paediatric trainee responses to job-share statements (n=25) |
|
|
| Statement |
Agree/neutral/disagree
(% of respondents) |
|
| Job-sharing allowed me to strike a balance
between my training and other things in my life |
100 / 0 / 0 |
| I would recommend job-sharing to other trainees |
100 / 0 / 0 |
| I found discussions with my partner during
hand-over provided an opportunity to compare and contrast management decisions and share knowledge |
88 / 8 / 4 |
| I found discussions with my partner during
hand-over were of benefit in solving clinical problems (two heads better than one) |
80 / 12 / 8 |
| While job-sharing I felt less tired at work
than when I worked full-time |
80 / 8/ 12 |
| While job-sharing I was more likely to read
up on clinical problems I encountered at work than when I worked full-time |
68 / 24 / 8 |
| Job-sharers are viewed as less committed than
full-time trainees by consultants |
68 / 24 / 8 |
| While job-sharing I felt I had "more to give"
to families than when I worked full-time |
68 / 16 / 16 |
| While job-sharing I felt more enthusiastic
about going to work than when I worked full-time |
64 / 36 / 0 |
| While job-sharing I felt more willing to spend
time teaching medical students and junior staff than when I worked full-time |
52 / 24 / 24 |
| Job-sharers have limited training opportunities
compared with full-time trainees |
44 / 12 / 44 |
| While job-sharing I often missed important
educational sessions during the week |
28 / 50 / 22 |
| Job-sharers are viewed as less committed than
full-time trainees by their peers |
24 / 24 / 52 |
| Arranging a job-share in 1998 was difficult |
16 / 12 / 72 |
| Job-sharing has adversely affected my career
prospects |
16 / 8 / 76 |
| Job-sharing is an easy option |
12 / 32 / 56 |
| The quality of job-share training is not as
good as full-time training for half as long |
8 / 16 / 76 |
| I was often unable to find out what happened
to my patients after I handed them over |
4 / 4 / 92 |
| The quality of service provided to patients
and their families is adversely affected by job-sharing |
0 / 4 / 96 |
| Being unable to follow all patients until
the end of their hospital stay adversely affected my training |
0 / 0 / 100 |
| Inadequate hand-over of information was a
significant problem |
0 / 0 / 100 |
| I regret job-sharing |
0 / 0 / 100 |
|
|
| Back to text |
|