BackgroundThe Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA) was developed rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic to replace the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) for UK general practice licensing. Our aim was to evaluate examiner perceptions of the RCA.MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional design using a questionnaire survey of RCA examiners with attitudinal (relating to examiners thoughts and perceptions of the RCA) and free text response options. We conducted statistical descriptive and factor analysis of quantitative data with qualitative thematic analysis of free text responses.ResultsOverall, 182 of 260 (70%) examiners completed the questionnaire. Responders felt that consultations submitted were representative of the work of a typical GP during the pandemic and provided a good sample across the curriculum. They were also generally positive about the logistic, advisory and other support provided as well as the digital platform. Despite responders generally agreeing there was sufficient information available in video or audio consultations to judge candidates' data gathering, clinical management, and interpersonal skills, they were less confident about their ability to make judgments of candidates' performance compared with the CSA. The qualitative analysis of free text responses detailed the problems of case selection and content, explained examiners' difficulties when making judgments, and detailed the generally positive views about support, training and information technology. Responders also provided helpful recommendations for improving the assessment.ConclusionThe RCA was considered by examiners to be feasible and broadly acceptable, although they experienced challenges from candidate case selection, case content and judgments leading to suggested areas for improvement.

The Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA) was rapidly developed to replace the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) for UK general practice licencing during COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate candidate perceptions of the RCA and relationships with performance. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of RCA candidates with attitudinal, demographic, and free text response options, undertaking descriptive and factor analysis of quantitative data with qualitative thematic analysis of free text. Binomial regression was used to estimate associations between RCA pass, candidate characteristics and questionnaire responses. 645 of 1551 (41.6%) candidates completed a questionnaire; 364 (56.4%) responders permitted linkage with performance and demographic data. Responders and non-responders were similar in exam performance, gender and declared disability but were significantly more likely to be UK graduates (UKG) or white compared with international medical (IMG) or ethnic minority graduates. Responders were positive about the digital platform and support resources. A small overall majority regarded the RCA as a fair assessment; a larger majority reported difficulty collecting, selecting, and submitting cases or felt rushed during recording. Logistic regression showed that ethnicity (white vs minority ethnic: odds ratio [OR] 2.99,95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23, 7.30, p = 0.016), training (UK vs IMG: OR 6.88, 95% CI 2.79, 16.95, p < 0.001), and English as first language (OR 5.11, 0% CI 2.08, 12.56, p < 0.001) were associated with exam success but questionnaire subscales, consultation type submitted, or extent of trainer review were not. The RCA was broadly acceptable but experiences were variable. Candidates experienced challenges and suggested areas for improvement.

ContextHigh‐stakes medical examinations seek to be fair to all candidates, including an increasing proportion of trainee doctors with specific learning differences. We aimed to investigate the performance of doctors declaring dyslexia in the clinical skills assessment (CSA), an objective structured clinical examination for licensing UK general practitioners.MethodsWe employed a cross‐sectional design using performance and attribute data from candidates taking the CSA between 2010 and 2017. We compared candidates who declared dyslexia (‘early’ before their first attempt or ‘late’ after failing at least once) with those who did not, using multivariable negative binomial regression investigating the effect of declaring dyslexia on passing the CSA, accounting for relevant factors previously associated with performance, including number of attempts, initial score, sex, place of primary medical qualification and ethnicity.ResultsOf 20 879 CSA candidates, 598 (2.9%) declared that they had dyslexia. Candidates declaring dyslexia were more likely to be male (47.3% versus 37.8%; p < 0.001) and to have a non‐UK primary medical qualification (26.9% versus 22.4%; p < 0.01), but were no different in ethnicity compared with those who never declared dyslexia. Candidates who declared dyslexia late were significantly more likely to fail compared with those candidates who declared dyslexia early (40.6% versus 9.2%; p < 0.001) and were more likely to have a non‐UK medical qualification (79.3% versus 15.6%; p < 0.001) or come from a minority ethnic group (84.9% versus 39.2%; p < 0.001). The chance of passing was lower for candidates declaring dyslexia compared to those who never declared dyslexia and lower in those declaring late (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70–0.96) compared with those declaring early (IRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93–0.97).ConclusionsA small proportion of candidates declaring dyslexia were less likely to pass the CSA, particularly if dyslexia was declared late. Further investigation of potential causes and solutions is needed.

Leadership is one of the GMC's Generic Professional Capabilities for all medical specialties, but engagement in leadership activities is not currently routinely built into general practice (GP) training. We explored whether GP trainees in their first year of speciality training (ST1) could engage with a leadership activity in their practice placement. GP trainees were invited to participate in a voluntary leadership activity, with a small menu of optional activities to choose from. Evaluation was through electronic survey of trainees and educational supervisors (ESs) before and after the GP placement, and through trainee focus groups after the placement. 89 trainees and 191 supervisors were surveyed at the start of the trial. Trainees felt supported by supervisors and practice team members. Both groups felt that leadership skills were important for a trainee's future career. Supervisors placed more emphasis on this than trainees. Identified barriers included lack of protected time, other training priorities, lack of empowerment, and personal issues. Most trainees and their supervisors felt that a leadership activity was possible during the first year of general practice training. More work needs to be done to see if these results are generalisable to trainees across demographic subgroups, and in other years of training.

NHS Scotland faces the challenges of an ageing population and a GP recruitment problem. Research has shown that hospital admissions can be reduced if community services can offer enhanced support, in keeping with the Scottish Government's 2020 Vision for healthcare. This study presents the findings of an evaluation of the first year of a three-year community GP fellowship which included working in primary care and secondary care and an educational programme. A grounded theory approach was adopted with data collected from GP fellows and key stakeholders using focus groups and individual interviews. A total of 12 fellows were interviewed at various times in the first year and 22 key stakeholders were interviewed once. The main themes were: aspirations for the fellowship, career choices of recently-qualified GPs, perceptions of primary care and secondary care components, planning and preparation of educational events, the creation of community hubs and identity and status of fellows. The fellowship showed potential for a change in practice and was a good foundation for further collaboration between health care sectors. Physical hubs need to be constructed and resourced to allow fellows to demonstrate a reduction in hospital admissions. More research is needed throughout the lifetime of the fellowship.

Background: There is currently a lack of formal training in leadership skills, particularly during GP training. This study aimed to explore the current training and practical opportunities which exist, specifically exploring the views of GP trainees and trainers. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent to 266 GP trainees and trainers in south-east Scotland. Questions focused on respondents' experience of leadership-specific training and opportunities to engage with leadership roles. Results: There were a total of 76 respondents (28.6% response rate). Response rate was 19.0% in trainees and 34.6% in trainers. A majority of respondents (80.0%) were established GPs. Of those who had received training in leadership, most (72.1%) underwent this after qualifying as a GP. Respondents identified a range of leadership roles within and outside the practice covering clinical and non-clinical areas. Most were interested in future leadership roles (46.7% moderately interested; 28% very interested). More time, training opportunities and the presence of GP role models were motivating factors in terms of participants' readiness to take on future leadership roles. Conclusions: Signposting trainees, trainers and general practitioners to leadership opportunities and training would be relatively easy but addressing a lack of motivating factors at a local level is essential. The effectiveness of such training and opportunities for experiential learning in leadership roles requires further research.What is already known?Leadership skills are important for all doctors, including GPs.We need leaders in primary care more than ever.There is currently little formal training for doctors in leadership skills, particularly during GP training.A number of barriers to such training and opportunities in leadership roles also exist.What this work addsThe study adds quantitative data, in particular seeking opinions from currentGP trainees. GP trainees and trainers are interested in developing leadership skills through formal training and taking on leadership roles.Access to these may be addressed at a local level to overcome barriers identified in order to meet the number and quality of leaders needed.Suggestions for future workWidening the scope of the study to include more GP trainees, particularly from a range of UK regions, and trainees of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.Developing and evaluating specific leadership training initiatives and resources for GP trainees, allowing review of the theoretical and practical teaching provision.Determining whether such training translates into sustained and measurably better care for patients.

Case based discussions (CbDs) are a mandatory workplace assessment used throughout general practitioner (GP) specialty training; they contribute to the annual review of competence progression (ARCP) for each trainee. This study examined the judgements arising from CbDs made by different groups of assessors and whether or not these assessments supported ARCP decisions. The trainees selected were at the end of their first year of GP training and had been identified during their ARCPs to need extra training time. CbDs were specifically chosen as they are completed by both hospital and GP supervisors, enabling comparison between these two groups. The results raise concern with regard to the consistency of judgements made by different groups of assessors, with significant variance between assessors of different status and seniority. Further work needs to be done on whether the CbD in its current format is fit for purpose as one of the mandatory WPBAs for GP trainees, particularly during their hospital placements. There is a need to increase the inter-rater reliability of CbDs to ensure a consistent contribution to subsequent decisions about a trainee's overall progress.

Background: MRCGP and MRCP(UK) are the main entry qualifications for UK doctors entering general [family] practice or hospital [internal] medicine. The performance of MRCP(UK) candidates who subsequently take MRCGP allows validation of each assessment.In the UK, underperformance of ethnic minority doctors taking MRCGP has had a high political profile, with a Judicial Review in the High Court in April 2014 for alleged racial discrimination. Although the legal challenge was dismissed, substantial performance differences between white and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) doctors undoubtedly exist. Understanding ethnic differences can be helped by comparing the performance of doctors who take both MRCGP and MRCP(UK).Methods: We identified 2,284 candidates who had taken one or more parts of both assessments, MRCP(UK) typically being taken 3.7 years before MRCGP. We analyzed performance on knowledge-based MCQs (MRCP(UK) Parts 1 and 2 and MRCGP Applied Knowledge Test (AKT)) and clinical examinations (MRCGP Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) and MRCP(UK) Practical Assessment of Clinical Skills (PACES)).Results: Correlations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) were high, disattenuated correlations for MRCGP AKT with MRCP (UK) Parts 1 and 2 being 0.748 and 0.698, and for CSA and PACES being 0.636.BME candidates performed less well on all five assessments (P < .001). Correlations disaggregated by ethnicity were complex, MRCGP AKT showing similar correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in White and BME candidates, but CSA showing stronger correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in BME candidates than in White candidates.CSA changed its scoring method during the study; multiple regression showed the newer CSA was better predicted by PACES than the previous CSA.Conclusions: High correlations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) support the validity of each, suggesting they assess knowledge cognate to both assessments.Detailed analyses by candidate ethnicity show that although White candidates out-perform BME candidates, the differences are largely mirrored across the two examinations. Whilst the reason for the differential performance is unclear, the similarity of the effects in independent knowledge and clinical examinations suggests the differences are unlikely to result from specific features of either assessment and most likely represent true differences in ability.

The MRCGP clinical skills assessment (CSA), a high-stakes OSCE examination whereby GPs exit their training, uses trained role-players to depict patients (though not to mark candidates). Just as subgroups of examiners can potentially affect the results of subgroups of candidates through biases expressed in discriminatory marking, so possibly could subgroups of role-players alter the difficulty for different candidate groups. This study looks at the contribution of role-players to such possible systematic unfairness in the assessment. Using multiple linear regression, we examined the data from all 52,702 case scores from the MRCGP CSA for the academic year 2012-2013. Candidates were dichotomised by sex, by ethnicity and by source of primary medical qualification (PMQ); role-players were dichotomised by sex and binary ethnicity; and the transaction of candidate/role-player encounters were classified as 'same' or 'different' in terms of the two parties' sex and of their ethnicity. Neither examiner nor role-player characteristics were found to predict any statistically significant portion of case score variance, where the significant (p < .001) predictors were source of PMQ (UK or elsewhere: 11% of case score variance), candidates' ethnicity (1%), candidates' sex (0.6%) and 'transactional' sex (0.1%). We did not therefore find any substantial degree of support for the proposition that role-player subgroups systematically influence candidate subgroups' scores.

UK three-year GP specialty training programmes consist of 18 months in hospital posts and 18 months in general practice. Within the hospital setting, clinical supervisors of GP trainees may have difficulty determining which learning opportunities available within the post are most relevant to training for a future career in general practice. Feedback from GP trainees has indicated that there is a lack of consistency in hospital posts regarding relevance of training for general practice. The aim of the project was to provide support to the hospital supervisors in order to improve the overall quality of hospital posts in GPST programmes and their relevance to General Practice training, and to provide guidance to GP trainees to target their learning most effectively within each specialty post to improve relevance to future career. The deanery set out to develop a tool, the Super Condensed Curriculum Guide (SCCG) consisting of a set of documents created for a specialty with involvement from stakeholder groups. It was intended that this guide would stand alongside the relevant part of the GP curriculum. A programme of familiarisation and initial training for clinical supervisors was delivered. Take-up of the clinical supervisor training sessions was not uniform. Following favourable initial feedback from trainee groups and clinical supervisors across the region, the guides were developed for the remaining specialties in the programme. Trainees were also informed about the guide and how it might help focus their learning in a hospital post. Feedback from trainees across the specialties was positive, but more needs to be done to engage clinical supervisors across the range of specialties. This will improve the utility of the tool, help to guide the clinical supervisor in their teaching, and make sure each post is as educationally effective as possible.

BackgroundRecent structural and policy changes in the UK health service have significantly changed the job responsibilities for the GP role.AimTo replicate a previous job analysis study to examine the relevance of current competency domains and selection criteria for doctors entering training.Design and methodA multisource, multimethod approach comprising three phases: (1) stakeholder consultation (n = 205) using interviews, focus groups and behavioural observation of practising GPs; (2) a validation questionnaire based on results from phase 1 (n = 1082); followed by (3) an expert panel (n = 6) to review and confirm the final competency domains.ResultsEleven competency domains were identified, which extends previous research findings. A new domain was identified called Leading for Continuing Improvement. Results show that, Empathy and Perspective Taking, Communication Skills, Clinical Knowledge and Expertise, and Professional Integrity are currently rated the most important domains. Results indicate a significant increase in ratings of importance for each domain in the future (P<0.001), except for Communication Skills and Empathy and Perspective Taking, which consistently remain high.ConclusionThe breadth of competencies required for GPs has increased significantly. GPs are now required to resolve competing tensions to be effective in their role, such as maintaining a patient focus while overseeing commissioning, with a potential ethical conflict between these aspects. Selection criteria remain largely unchanged but with increased priority in some domains (for example, Effective Teamworking). However, there is an urgent need to review the training provision arrangements to reflect the greater breadth of competencies now required.