Rosen, Stuart D.

Abstract Background Resident Doctors (RDs) in the UK must balance clinical training with non-clinical administrative tasks. Concerns increase over how these tasks impact their professional development, job satisfaction and patient care. The shift toward consultant-delivered care has led to a redistribution of responsibilities, increasing administrative burden on RDs. Aims This study aims to quantify how RDs allocate time between patient-facing and non-patient-facing tasks and assess impact on job satisfaction. Design National multicentre observational cohort study. Methodology The Time Allocation in Clinical Training study is a multicentre, observational cohort study conducted over seven months (January–July 2024) at secondary NHS centres. 137 RDs, from Foundation Year 1 to Specialty Training Year 8, were observed for 4-hour periods, with time tracked using stopwatches for five task categories. An optional survey assessed job satisfaction, rated on a five-point Likert scale. Results RDs spent 73.0% of their time on non-patient-facing tasks, and 17.9% on patient-facing activities. Women spent more time on non-patient-facing tasks compared to men (75.0% vs. 69.9%, P = 0.03). Junior RDs (Foundation years and Core trainees) spent significantly less time on patient-facing tasks compared to senior RDs (ST6-8) (38.4% vs. 17.8%; P = 0.004). Most RDs (62%) reported dissatisfaction with the administrative burden. Electronic health record users spent significantly more time on administrative tasks than paper-based record users (44.1% vs. 37.3%; P = 0.02). Conclusions The study reveals a significant imbalance between clinical and administrative tasks, with excessive administrative workload contributing to RD dissatisfaction. Streamlining administrative duties and integrating digital solutions is crucial for improving job satisfaction, clinical development and healthcare delivery in the NHS.

Abstract This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.