You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Response to letter from Youngson et al
  1. Paul Greig1,
  2. Helen Higham2,
  3. Emma Vaux3,4
  1. 1 Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
  2. 2 Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
  3. 3 Department of Renal Medicine, Royal Berkshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK
  4. 4 Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul Greig, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, OxSTaR Centre, Modular Building Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX3 9DU, UK; paul.greig{at}ndcn.ox.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004936

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Professor Youngson et al 1 for their interest in our work2 and their comments calling for greater standardisation in medical non-technical skills (NTS) teaching.

    We are pleased that Professor Youngson agrees with our conclusion about the need for better cooperation and communication between specialties on how such training and assessment should be carried out. We are also delighted to acknowledge the important work being carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons (Edinburgh) (RCSEd) and the University of Aberdeen on the development of Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS), and are of course aware of the paper by Crossley et al.3

    Although much excellent work has been done, we still maintain that more might be done …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Emma Vaux at @VauxEmma

    • Contributors All authors contributed equally.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles