scholarly journals Exposure of undergraduates to authentic GP teaching and subsequent entry to GP training: a quantitative study of UK medical schools

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (657) ◽  
pp. e248-e252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Alberti ◽  
Hannah L Randles ◽  
Alex Harding ◽  
Robert K McKinley
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Quantitative Study ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Practice Teaching ◽  
The Uk ◽  
General Practice Training ◽  
Gp Training

BackgroundIt has been suggested that the quantity of exposure to general practice teaching at medical school is associated with future choice of a career as a GP.Aim To examine the relationship between general practice exposure at medical school and the percentage of each school’s graduates appointed to a general practice training programme after foundation training (postgraduate years 1 and 2).Design and setting A quantitative study of 29 UK medical schools.MethodThe UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) destination surveys of 2014 and 2015 were used to determine the percentage of graduates of each UK medical school who were appointed to a GP training programme after foundation year 2. The Spearman rank correlation was used to examine the correlation between these data and the number of sessions spent in placements in general practice at each medical school.ResultsA statistically significant association was demonstrated between the quantity of authentic general practice teaching at each medical school and the percentage of its graduates who entered GP training after foundation programme year 2 in both 2014 (correlation coefficient [r] 0.41, P = 0.027) and 2015 (r 0.3, P = 0.044). Authentic general practice teaching here is described as teaching in a practice with patient contact, in contrast to non-clinical sessions such as group tutorials in the medical school.DiscussionThe authors have demonstrated, for the first time in the UK, an association between the quantity of clinical GP teaching at medical school and entry to general practice training. This study suggests that an increased use of, and investment in, undergraduate general practice placements would help to ensure that the UK meets its target of 50% of medical graduates entering general practice.

scholarly journals Does applicant specialty ambition influence medical school choice?

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp19X703685
Author(s):  
Eliot Rees ◽  
David Harrison ◽  
Karen Mattick ◽  
Katherine Woolf
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
School Choice ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
First Year ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Individual Interviews ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
The Uk ◽  
First Year Medical Students

BackgroundThe NHS is critically short of doctors. The sustainability of the UK medical workforce depends on medical schools producing more future GPs who are able and willing to care for under-served patient populations. The evidence for how medical schools should achieve this is scarce. We know medical schools vary in how they attract, select, and educate future doctors. We know some medical schools produce more GPs, but it is uncertain whether those school recruit more students who are interested in general practice.AimThis study seeks to explore how applicants’ future speciality ambitions influence their choice of medical school.MethodOne-to-one semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with medical applicants and first year medical students at eight medical schools around the UK. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed through thematic analysis by one researcher. A sample of 20% of transcripts were analysed by a second researcher.ResultsSixty-six individuals participated in 61 individual interviews and one focus group. Interviews lasted a mean of 54 minutes (range 22–113). Twelve expressed interest in general practice, 40 favoured other specialities, and 14 were unsure. Participants’ priorities varied by speciality aspiration; those interested in general practice described favouring medical schools with early clinical experience and problem-based learning curricula, and were less concerned with cadaveric dissection and the prestige of the medical school.ConclusionMany applicants consider future speciality ambitions before applying to medical school. Speciality aspiration appears to influence priority of medical schools’ attributes.

What is the SJT?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Personnel Selection ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Multiple Choice ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Final Score ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Selection Of

SJTs are commonly used by organizations for personnel selection. They aim to provide realistic, but hypothetical, scenarios and possible answers which are either selected or ranked by the candidate. One such test will contribute half, or significantly more than half, the score used by applicants to the UK Foundation Programme. The test will involve a single paper over two hours and twenty minutes in which candidates will answer 70 questions. This equates to approximately two minutes per question. Your response to 60 questions will be included in your final score, while ten questions embedded throughout the test will be pilot questions which are designed to be validated but not counted in your final score. You will not be able to differentiate pilot from genuine test questions and should answer every question as if it ‘counts’. In one SJT pilot, 96% of candidates finished the test within two hours, which provides some indication about the time pressure. It is important to answer all questions and not simply ‘guess’ those left at the end. Although the SJT is not negatively marked, random guesses are not allocated points. The scoring software will identify guesses by looking for unusual or sporadic answer patterns. The SJT will be held locally by individual medical schools under invigilated conditions. Therefore, your medical school should be in touch about specific local arrangements. Each SJT paper will include a selection of questions, each mapped to a specific professional attribute. Questions should be evenly distributed between attributes and between scenario type, i.e. ‘patient’, ‘colleague’, or ‘personal’. The SJT will include two types of question: ● multiple choice questions (approximately one- third) ● ranking questions (approximately two- thirds). These begin with a scenario and provide eight possible answers. Three of these are correct and should be selected. The remaining five are incorrect. The example in Box 2.1 provides an illustrative medical school scenario. For questions based around Foundation Programme scenarios, over 100 examples are provided for practice from onwards.

scholarly journals Bringing psychiatry training to the next generation: a Foundation Year 1 doctor's tale

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 312-313
Author(s):  
Gareth Thomas ◽  
John Knapp
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Specialty Training ◽  
Psychiatry Training ◽  
Consultant Psychiatrist ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Old Age Psychiatry ◽  
The Uk ◽  
First Time ◽  
General Practice Training

The Foundation Programme is a 2-year programme in the UK which forms the bridge between medical school and specialist/general practice training. It provides trainees with a broad range of experiences enabling them to apply for specialty training at an earlier stage. J.K., consultant psychiatrist in old age psychiatry, tells us about the experiences of hosting a Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctor for the first time and the first incumbent G.T. (FY1) adds his views.

scholarly journals Are there differences between those doctors who apply for a training post in Foundation Year 2 and those who take time out of the training pathway? A UK multicohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Cleland ◽  
Gordon Prescott ◽  
Kim Walker ◽  
Peter Johnston ◽  
Ben Kumwenda
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Workforce Planning ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Specialty Training ◽  
Time Out ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Training Post ◽  
Multivariable Regression ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Participation In Higher Education

IntroductionKnowledge about the career decisions of doctors in relation to specialty (residency) training is essential in terms of UK workforce planning. However, little is known about which doctors elect to progress directly from Foundation Year 2 (F2) into core/specialty/general practice training and those who instead opt for an alternative next career step.ObjectiveTo identify if there were any individual differences between these two groups of doctors.DesignThis was a longitudinal, cohort study of ‘home’ students who graduated from UK medical schools between 2010 and 2015 and completed the Foundation Programme (FP) between 2012 and 2017.We used the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) to access linked data from different sources, including medical school performance, specialty training applications and career preferences. Multivariable regression analyses were used to predict the odds of taking time out of training based on various sociodemographic factors.Results18 380/38 905 (47.2%) of F2 doctors applied for, and accepted, a training post offer immediately after completing F2. The most common pattern for doctors taking time out of the training pathway after FP was to have a 1-year (7155: 38.8%) or a 2-year break (2605: 14.0%) from training. The odds of not proceeding directly into core or specialty training were higher for those who were male, white, entered medical school as (high) school leavers and whose parents were educated to degree level. Doctors from areas of low participation in higher education were significantly (0.001) more likely to proceed directly into core or specialty training.ConclusionThe results show that UK doctors from higher socioeconomic groups are less likely to choose to progress directly from the FP into specialty training. The data suggest that widening access and encouraging more socioeconomic diversity in our medical students may be helpful in terms of attracting F2s into core/specialty training posts.

scholarly journals Medical students’ perceptions of a career in general practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp19X702773
Author(s):  
Kimberley Banner ◽  
Hugh Alberti ◽  
Jane Stewart
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Personal Narratives ◽  
Career Intentions ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Training Programmes ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Gp Training

BackgroundRecruitment into general practice is falling and many training programmes in the UK have unfilled training posts. In 2016 NHS England pledged to increase the number of graduates entering GP training to 50%. However in 2017 only 15.3% of foundation year 2 doctors commenced general practice.AimThis work aims to understand medical students’ perceptions of a career in general practice, and how this may affect their career intentions.MethodAs part of a larger, longitudinal study at four UK universities. First and fourth year students were invited to a focus group to discuss their perceptions of a career in general practice. The recordings were transcribed and content analysis was performed.ResultsThe perceptions discussed could be broadly grouped into three categories. ‘The GP’ highlighted students’ ideas of the GP as someone who was dedicated, could create rapport, and wanted a family life. The ‘Job of the GP’ indicated students were positive about the continuity of care the job offered, but felt the work was isolating and paperwork heavy. Finally, external factors such as denigration and the ‘GP land’ concept also had an impact on students’ perceptions.ConclusionFurther work is needed to understand how these perceptions develop, how this may impact students career intentions, and how this research could be used to improve GP recruitment. This data will form part of a wider longitudinal study, the results of which will be analysed for themes and personal narratives of the students.

Usefulness of a virtual community of practice and Web 2.0 tools for general practice training: experiences and expectations of general practitioner registrars and supervisors

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Barnett ◽  
Sandra C. Jones ◽  
Sue Bennett ◽  
Don Iverson ◽  
Andrew Bonney
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Community Of Practice ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Professional Isolation ◽  
Social Media Tools ◽  
General Practice Training ◽  
Gp Training

General practice training is a community of practice in which novices and experts share knowledge. However, there are barriers to knowledge sharing for general practioner (GP) registrars, including geographic and workplace isolation. Virtual communities of practice (VCoP) can be effective in overcoming these barriers using social media tools. The present study examined the perceived usefulness, features and barriers to implementing a VCoP for GP training. Following a survey study of GP registrars and supervisors on VCoP feasibility, a qualitative telephone interview study was undertaken within a regional training provider. Participants with the highest Internet usage in the survey study were selected. Two researchers worked independently conducting thematic analysis using manual coding of transcriptions, later discussing themes until agreement was reached. Seven GP registrars and three GP supervisors participated in the study (average age 38.2 years). Themes emerged regarding professional isolation, potential of social media tools to provide peer support and improve knowledge sharing, and barriers to usage, including time, access and skills. Frequent Internet-using GP registrars and supervisors perceive a VCoP for GP training as a useful tool to overcome professional isolation through improved knowledge sharing. Given that professional isolation can lead to decreased rural work and reduced hours, a successful VCoP may have a positive outcome on the rural medical workforce.

scholarly journals Comparing international postgraduate training and healthcare context with the UK to streamline overseas GP recruitment: four case studies

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101034
Author(s):  
Emily Fletcher ◽  
John Campbell ◽  
Emma Pitchforth ◽  
Adrian Freeman ◽  
Leon Poltawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
General Practice ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
General Medical Council ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Medical Council ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Gp Training

BackgroundThere are ambitious overseas recruitment targets to alleviate current GP shortages in the UK. GP training in European Economic Area (EEA) countries is recognised by the General Medical Council (GMC) as equivalent UK training; non-EEA GPs must obtain a Certificate of Eligibility for General Practice Registration (CEGPR), demonstrating equivalence to UK-trained GPs. The CEGPR may be a barrier to recruiting GPs from non-EEA countries. It is important to facilitate the most streamlined route into UK general practice while maintaining registration standards and patient safety.AimTo apply a previously published mapping methodology to four non-EEA countries: South Africa, US, Canada, and New Zealand.Design & settingDesk-based research was undertaken. This was supplemented with stakeholder interviews.MethodThe method consisted of: (1) a rapid review of 13 non-EEA countries using a structured mapping framework, and publicly available website content and country-based informant interviews; (2) mapping of five ‘domains’ of comparison between four overseas countries and the UK (healthcare context, training pathway, curriculum, assessment, and continuing professional development (CPD) and revalidation). Mapping of the domains involved desk-based research. A red, amber, or green (RAG) rating was applied to indicate the degree of alignment with the UK.ResultsAll four countries were rated ‘green’. Areas of differences that should be considered by regulatory authorities when designing streamlined CEGPR processes for these countries include: healthcare context (South Africa and US), CPD and revalidation (US, Canada, and South Africa), and assessments (New Zealand).ConclusionMapping these four non-EEA countries to the UK provides evidence of utility of the systematic method for comparing GP training between countries, and may support the UK’s ambitions to recruit more GPs to alleviate UK GP workforce pressures.

scholarly journals Variation in Performance on Common Content Items at UK Medical Schools

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hope ◽  
David Kluth ◽  
Matthew Homer ◽  
Avril Dewar ◽  
Richard Fuller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Pass Rates ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Common Content ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Due to the diverse approaches to medical school assessment, making meaningful cross-school comparisons on knowledge is difficult. Ahead of the introduction of national licensing assessment in the UK, we evaluate schools on “common content” to compare candidates at different schools and evaluate whether they would pass under different standard setting regimes. Such information can then help develop a cross-school consensus on standard setting shared content. Methods We undertook a cross-sectional study in the academic sessions 2016-17 and 2017-18. Sixty “best of five” multiple choice items were delivered each year, with five used in both years. In 2016-17 30 (of 31 eligible) medical schools undertook a mean of 52.6 items with 7,177 participants. In 2017-18 the same 30 medical schools undertook a mean of 52.8 items with 7,165 participants for a full sample of 14,342 medical students sitting common content prior to graduation. Using mean scores, we compared performance across items and carried out a “like-for-like” comparison of schools who used the same set of items then modelled the impact of different passing standards on these schools. Results Schools varied substantially on candidate total score. Schools differed in their performance with large (Cohen’s d around 1) effects. A passing standard that would see 5% of candidates at high scoring schools fail left low-scoring schools with fail rates of up to 40%, whereas a passing standard that would see 5% of candidates at low scoring schools fail would see virtually no candidates from high scoring schools fail. Conclusions Candidates at different schools exhibited significant differences in scores in two separate sittings. Performance varied by enough that standard setting approaches that produce realistic fail rates in one medical school may produce substantially different pass rates in other medical schools – despite identical content and the candidates being governed by the same regulator. Regardless of which hypothetical standards are “correct” as judged by experts, large institutional gaps in pass rates must be explored and understood by medical educators before shared standards are applied. The study results can assist cross-school groups in developing a consensus on standard setting future licensing assessment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document