A large survey among European trainees in clinical microbiology and infectious disease on training systems and training adequacy: identifying the gaps and suggesting improvements

E. Yusuf, D. S. Y. Ong, A. Martin-Quiros, C. Skevaki, J. Cortez, K. Dedić, A. E. Maraolo, D. Dušek, P. J. Maver, M. Sanguinetti, E. Tacconelli, The Trainee Association of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID)

The purpose of this investigation was to perform a survey among European clinical microbiology (CM) and infectious disease (ID) trainees on training satisfaction, training tools, and competency assessment. An online, anonymous survey in the English language was carried out between April and July 2015. There were 25 questions: seven in a 5-point Likert scale (1: worst scenario, 5: best scenario) and the remainder as closed multiple-choice questions in five areas (satisfaction, adequacy, system, mentorship, and evaluation of training). Included were 419 respondents (215 CM, 159 ID, and 45 combined CM/ID) from 31 European countries [mean age (standard deviation) 32.4 (5.3) years, 65.9 % women]. Regarding satisfaction on the training scheme, CM and ID scored 3.6 (0.9) and 3.2 (1.0), respectively. These scores varied between countries, ranging from 2.5 (1.0) for Italian ID to 4.3 (0.8) for Danish CM trainees. The majority of respondents considered training in management and health economics inadequate and e-learning and continuing medical education programs insufficient. Many trainees (65.3 % of CM and 62.9 % of ID) would like to have more opportunities to spend a part of their training abroad and expected their mentor to be more involved in helping with future career plans (63.5 % of CM and 53.4 % of ID) and practical skills (53.0 % of CM and 61.2 % of ID). Two-thirds of the respondents across the specialties agreed that a European exam should be developed, but half of them thought it should not be made mandatory. This survey shows high heterogeneity in training conditions in European countries, identifies perceived gaps in training, and suggests areas for improvements.