Prepared for practice? A national cross-sectional survey of patient safety, human factors, and medicolegal training in UK medical students and resident doctors

Le résumé fourni par la source

Recognising how human factors shape workplace behaviour and patient safety, as well as appreciating their medicolegal consequences, is essential for the modern medical graduate. This study examines medical students' and resident doctors' practices, attitudes, and experiences in relation to patient safety and human factors. A UK-wide convenience survey of UK medical students and resident doctors was done between April and June 2025. Results were compared with a pilot group of students from under-represented backgrounds who participated in a tailored human factors and medicolegal workshop. Of 1274 survey respondents, 942 (74.0%) were medical students and 332 (26.0%) resident doctors. Human factors frequently reported were time pressures (57.0%), fatigue (56.2%), and ineffective handover (43.8%). Preparedness to manage human factors (median 3/5) and confidence to speak up (median 3/5) were significantly lower among comprehensive/state-educated respondents (confidence-adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.87, vs grammar/private/international schools). Most respondents lacked clear institutional guidance on the legal implications of error (62.2%), and nearly half did not know where to seek support. Workshop participants (n = 21) reported greater preparedness to recognise and manage human factors and more confidence to raise concerns (p < 0.001). Despite frequently encountering patient safety-related human factors, UK resident doctors and medical students are only moderately prepared and supported to address them. In a healthcare environment with increasing workloads, resource limitations, and errors, greater training and exposure to key concepts is required. Educational interventions could be drawn from other high-reliability organisations such as aviation to reduce the incidence of patient safety and medical errors.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.