Dataset Information

Exploring differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and their trainers.

ABSTRACT: Background During specialty training for general practice, trainees acquire the required competencies through work-based learning. Previous small-scale and older studies suggest that the patient mix of general practitioner (GP) trainees differs from that of their trainers: trainees are exposed to more minor illnesses, and fewer chronic diseases and severe conditions, which may influence the development of their competency. Research question What are the differences in the patient mix between trainees and trainers? Methods 49 first- and 24 third-year trainees and their trainers (n=114) were included in the study. International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) contact and diagnosis codes were extracted from electronic patient records over 6 months. Results Trainers had double the number of face-to-face consultations, and treble the number of telephone consultations compared with trainees. The trainees' patient mix consisted of significantly more patients with eye diseases, ear diseases, respiratory diseases, skin diseases and minor illnesses compared with their trainers. Trainers encountered significantly more patients with circulatory diseases, psychiatric diseases, metabolic diseases, male genital conditions, social problems, and chronic and oncological diseases. Female trainers and trainees encountered almost twice the number of female conditions compared with their male counterparts, while for male conditions, the opposite was found. Discussion Considerable differences between the patient mix of trainers and trainees were found. Specialty trainers and teachers must be aware of areas of low exposure. Trainers should ensure trainees handle more chronic, complex, psychosocial and circulatory conditions.

SUBMITTER: De Jong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3221294 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and their trainers.

De Jong Jip J Visser Mechteld R M MR Wieringa-de Waard Margreet M

BMJ open 20111114 2

Background During specialty training for general practice, trainees acquire the required competencies through work-based learning. Previous small-scale and older studies suggest that the patient mix of general practitioner (GP) trainees differs from that of their trainers: trainees are exposed to more minor illnesses, and fewer chronic diseases and severe conditions, which may influence the development of their competency. Research question What are the differences in the patient mix between tr ...[more]

PMID: 22102644

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction ?In the United Kingdom, work-based assessments (WBAs) including procedure-based assessments (PBAs), case-based discussions (CBDs), clinical evaluation exercises (CEXs), and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) have been used in Higher General Surgical Training Program (HGSTP) since the introduction of Modernising Medical Careers. Although the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Project states that they should be used for the formative development of trainees using feedback and reflection, there is no study to look at the perception of their usefulness and barriers in using them, particularly in HGSTP. The aim of this study is to investigate trainer's and trainee's perception of their usefulness, barriers in using them, and way forward for their improvement in HGSTP. Methods ?This was a mixed method study. In phase I, after ethics committee approval, an online survey was sent to 83 trainers and 104 trainees, with a response rate of 33 and 37%, respectively, using Online Surveys (formerly Bristol Online Survey) from July 2018 to December 2018. After analysis of this result, in phase II, semistructured interviews were conducted with five trainees and five trainers who had volunteered to take part from phase I. Thematic analysis was performed to develop overarching themes. Results ?For professional formative development, 15% of the trainers and 53% of the trainees felt that WBAs had a low value. Among 4 WBAs-CEX, CBD, PBA, and DOPS-PBA was thought to be the most useful WBA by 52% trainers and 74% trainees. More trainers than trainees felt that it was being used as a formative tool (33 vs. 16%). The total number of WBAs thought to be required was between 20 and 40 per year, with 46% of the trainers and 53% of the trainees preferring these numbers. The thematic analysis generated four themes with subthemes in each: theme 1, "factors affecting usefulness," including the mode of validation, trainer/trainee engagement, and time spent in validating; theme 2, "doubt on utility" due to doubt on validity and being used as a tick-box exercise; theme 3, "pitfalls/difficulties" due to lack of time to validate, late validation, e-mail rather than face-to-face validation, trainer and trainee behavior, variability in feedback given, and emphasis on number than quality; and theme 4, "improvement strategies." Conclusions ?The WBAs are not being used in a way they are supposed to be used. The perception of educational impact (Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2) by trainers was more optimistic than by trainees. Improvements can be made by giving/finding more time, trainer training, more face-to-face validation, and better trainer trainee interactions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Switzerland, like many other countries, has a shortage of General Practitioners (GPs). Optional GP training modules in GP practices were offered during the at least 5-year GP training program to increase student and trainee interest in becoming a GP. The training modules had not yet been evaluated. We determined how many Swiss GP trainees became practicing GPs after they completed optional training modules, and if longer modules were associated with higher rates of GP specialization. METHODS:In this population-based cohort study, we included GP trainees who chose an optional GP training module in GP practice, provided by the Foundation to Promote Training in General Practice (WHM) between 2006 and 2015. GP trainees were invited to complete an online survey to assess the primary outcome (becoming a practicing GP by 2016). Data on non-responders was collected via an internet search. We calculated univariate time-to-event curves to become a practicing GP, stratified by trainee's gender, length, part-time training, and number of years after graduation until training modules were completed. We used a multivariate model to adjust for characteristics of participants, training, and satisfaction with training modules. RESULTS:We assessed primary outcome for 351 (92.1%) of 381 former GP trainees who participated in a WHM program between 2006 and 2015. Of these 218 (57%) were practicing GPs by 2016. When focusing on the trainees who had completed training between 2006 and 2010, the rate of practicing GPs was even 73%. Longer (p = 0.018) and part-time training modules (p = 0.003) were associated with higher rates of being a practicing GP. Most (81%) practicing GPs thought their optional GP training module was (very) important in their choice of specialty. CONCLUSION:GP trainees who spent more time training in a GP practice, or who trained part-time were more likely to become practicing GPs. Most (80%) rated their training module as (very) important in their choice of career, highlighting that these modules effectively encourage the interests of those already inclined towards the GP specialty. Longer GP training modules and more opportunities for part-time training may attract and retain more interested trainees, and possibly increase the number of practicing GPs.

Project description:ObjectivesTrust plays an important role in workplace-based postgraduate medical education programmes. Trainers must trust their trainees for granting them greater independence. Trainees must trust their trainer for a safe learning environment. As trainers' and trainees' trust in each other plays an important role in trainee learning and development, the authors aimed to explore the development of the mutual trust relationship between trainers and trainees.SettingThis study was performed in a general practice training department in the Netherlands.ParticipantsAll trainers and trainees of the general practice training department were invited to participate. Fifteen trainers and 34 trainees, voluntarily participated in focus group discussions.Outcome measuresThe authors aimed to gain insight in the factors involved in the development of the mutual trust relationship between trainers and trainees, in order to be able to create a model for the development of a mutual trust relationship between trainers and trainees. The risk-based view of trust was adopted as leading conceptual framework.ResultsIn the first stage of trust development, trainers and trainees develop basic trust in each other. Basic trust forms the foundation of the trust relationship. In the second stage, trainers develop trust in trainees taking into account trainees' working and learning performance, and the context in which the work is performed. Trainees trust their trainer based on the trainer'savailability and accessibility and the personal relationship between the trainee and their trainer. Trainee self-confidence modifies the development of a trust relationship.ConclusionThe development of a mutual trust relationship between trainers and trainees is a complex process that involves various stages, goals, factors and interactive aspects. As the mutual trust relationship influences the learning environment for trainees, greater emphasis on the mutual trust relationship may improve learning outcomes. Further research may explore the effect of long-term and short-term educational relationships on the trust relationship between trainers and trainees.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Radiotherapy technology and postgraduate medical training have both evolved significantly over the last 20 years. Clinical Oncology is a recognised craft specialty where the apprenticeship model of clinical training is applicable. The challenges of learning radiotherapy in the modern radiotherapy department workplace have not been comprehensively described and no optimal method has been identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Five Clinical Oncology trainers and five Clinical Oncology trainees at a regional cancer centre will be invited to undertake a semistructured interview regarding their personal accounts of learning radiotherapy. Both trainees and consultants will be treated as equal co-investors in the process of radiotherapy learning, with the common shared aim of passing radiotherapy skills from trainers to trainees. Interviews will last up to 40 min. After transcription, an interpretative phenomenological analysis will be performed. All trainees and trainers at the same centre (n=34) will then be invited to complete the same purpose-built questionnaire. Four trainers and three trainees have piloted the questionnaire, and input was sought from the national leads of the biennial UK Clinical Oncology training survey. Significance testing will be performed on predefined questions and thematic analysis on white space questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Medical education research is evolving in Clinical Oncology and Radiation Oncology but there are few studies comprehensively assessing this from the viewpoint of trainees and trainers. Pending the success of the proposed study, the approach detailed represents a novel method that could be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of radiotherapy training in other centres and settings. Ethical and governance approvals have been granted by the University Research Ethics Committee and the Integrated Research Application System, respectively. This study has been funded by Friends of the Cancer Centre.

Dataset Information

Exploring differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and their trainers.

Publications

Exploring differences in patient mix in a cohort of GP trainees and their trainers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets