Objectives & Background Organisations which conduct exit interviews are known to create more promoters in people who leave than organisations that do not. Despite this and the valuable feedback gained, exit interviews are uncommon in medicine.

Our objectives were to develop an exit interview programme which was brief, gave the opportunity to say positives and negatives and guaranteed anonymity. Further to this we wished to evaluate the information that we received and how useful it was felt to be by those taking part.

Methods Following a pilot study we developed a peer on peer, time restricted, anonymous, semi structured interview process which was delivered by our junior medical tier to each other.

Specific questions related to good experiences, bad experiences, the overall educational experience, ease of the interview process and any members of staff that the interviewees might wish to thank. Staff were given the questions in advance to allow them some time to consider their answers.

At the end of the interview the responses were reflected back to the interviewee to check for accuracy.

Completed interviews were thematically analysed and coded by the research team.

Results At the time of submission we have >30 interviews completed.

All respondents found having an exit interview useful or very useful.

The paperwork was regarded as being user friendly by the staff delivering and receiving the interviews.

The most appreciated part of the job was consistently felt to be the consultant contact and patient diversity.

Areas of frustration differed to the information we had received from junior Drs forum, which would seem to imply this process adds value.

Amongst other issues, the junior medical staff wish more exposure to resus (trauma in particular) and more teaching in minors.

On direct questioning there was an exact 50:50 split between those who were more and those who were less likely to follow a career in EM after doing the job.

Conclusion The process was appreciated by those who took part.

If the evidence from the business community is replicated in healthcare then we should create more positivity about the EM job by using this process. Even if we do not create more promoters of the department, we have received much very useful feedback (both positive and negative) that we can work on.

We feel we can recommend this method of feedback as safe, personalised, anonymous and valuable.