Balancing act of academic clinical fellows in UK emergency medicine: a qualitative study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine (EM) faces significant workforce challenges in sustaining clinical academic careers. Academic clinical fellowships (ACFs) offer protected research time, but little is known about how EM ACFs experience and navigate these posts. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 current and former EM ACFs from 12 universities in England and Wales. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach. A mixed inductive and deductive framework was applied. Reflexivity and positionality were addressed through multi-researcher coding and consensus development. RESULTS: Six themes were identified: (1) Elements of surprise-structural ambiguity and unexpected barriers; (2) Unclear direction-limited guidance and inconsistent supervision; (3) Loneliness-professional isolation and detachment from clinical peers; (4) Engagement-enthusiasm linked to research alignment and supervisory support; (5) Repeated generic hurdles-difficulty balancing academic and clinical demands; (6) EM-specific hurdles-reduced exposure to key rotations and limited academic mentorship within EM. Fellows reported uncertainty about extensions to training and programme variability. CONCLUSIONS: The EM ACF provides valuable entry into clinical academia; however, inconsistent structures, supervisory support and clarity in expectations hinder its full potential. Standardised induction, tailored supervision and flexible but transparent pathways are needed. These findings can inform policy, training programmes and institutional practices to better support the next generation of clinical academics in EM in the UK.