Concerns have been raised that undergraduate medical education in Endocrinology/Diabetes (E&D) is not preparing students adequately for clinical practice. This project assessed trainer perceptions of the delivered D&E curriculum and identified areas for improvement. We surveyed E&D consultants at the 12 hospitals which accept students from our medical school using an online questionnaire. Emails were sent to 50 consultants. The response rate was 46% (23/50 recipients). Only 3/23 (13%) respondents thought current levels of teaching equipped new graduates to manage E&D situations appropriately. 20/23 (87%) felt strongly that a national undergraduate E&D curriculum was required. Only 7/23 (30%) felt that students in their first clinical year (3rd Year) received scheduled E&D out-patient or bedside teaching. Moreover this was variable depending on the students firm. 16/23 (70%) felt there should be more E&D in this year and that current exposure was inadequate. The 4th year dedicated diabetes module is intended to cover most aspects of diabetes learning. Inadequacies were noted in exposure to diabetes management (14/2360%), acute emergencies management (15/2365%) and the module assessment (14/2360%). Training in capillary blood sugar testing is the only E&D competency specified by the GMC in Tomorrows Doctors (2009). Only 7/23 (30%) felt this was achieved. Over 50% (12/2352%) of trainers felt the level of D&E knowledge acquired by graduation was low. 10/23 (43%) rated e-learning modules important tools for learning, but only 2/23 (9%) felt students were given opportunities to use them. 17/23 (74%) felt electronic prescribing systems were useful in preventing drug errors and 19/23 (83%) thought this should be mandatory. 87% (20/23) felt students needed more training in insulin prescription. E&D impacts on most areas of clinical practice. The survey responses indicated that undergraduate E&D education requires comprehensive review. This could be addressed by a structured curriculum for E&D.
Declaration of interest: There is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.
Funding: No specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.