Background UK and global primary care face significant GP workforce shortages. Much research focuses on individuallevel factors such as wellbeing, resilience, and professional identity; however, less attention has been given to organisational-and systemlevel influences on GP work and workforce sustainability. Aim To examine how general practice work and healthcare systems support GP workforce sustainability and effective, equitable patient care. Design and setting This was a UK-focused realist review of empirical and grey literature. The search strategy encompassed six electronic databases. Method The realist synthesis involved 1) finding existing theories, 2) searching for evidence, 3) selecting articles, 4) extracting data, and 5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed using extracted data, alongside input from patient and public contributors and stakeholders to iteratively refine the programme theory. Results In total, 190 documents were included. Findings highlight the importance of meaningful work and engagement; relationships across individuals, organisations, and communities; and learning and development. Sustaining the GP workforce and delivering effective and equitable patient care require congruence between GPs' core values and their work; cumulativeknowledge building; system agility; psychological safety; and direct human connections. Conclusion Structures, policies, and relational connections within general practice are central for sustaining the GP workforce and enabling effective, equitable patient care. Collaboration among GPs, patients, and policymakers is essential. Future systems should prioritise personalised care, support meaning making, and protect GP autonomy to foster sustained engagement, expertise, and equity in care delivery

This commentary argues that specialty choice reflects capital, cost and constraint—not just preference—and call for widening the conditions under which genuine choice becomes possible. #MedEd

Abstract Background: Global and United Kingdom (UK) primary care face significant General Practitioner (GP) workforce shortages. Worldwide strategies to address this issue include the introduction of additional healthcare professionals and increasing technology utilisation, to reduce GP workload. However, whether these strategies can sustain the GP workforce remains unclear. Our review examines the factors that sustain and enable GPs to flourish. Aim: To examine how general practice work and healthcare systems support GP workforce sustainability and effective and equitable patient care. Design & setting: A realist review of existing empirical and grey literature. The search strategy encompassed six electronic databases. Method: Realist synthesis involved (1) finding existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting data, and (5) synthesising evidence/drawing conclusions. Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations were developed using extracted data and patient and public involvement/stakeholder suggestions to refine our programme theory. Results: 168 documents were included. Findings underscore the importance of meaningful work and engagement; relationships across individuals, organisations, and communities; and learning and development. We emphasise the need for congruence between GPs` core values and their work; cumulative-knowledge building; system agility; psychological safety; and direct human connections. Conclusion: General practice structures, policies, and practices, and the interactions they facilitate, are crucial for the sustainability of the workforce. Collaboration among GPs, the public, and national policymakers is essential for implementing the principles from this review. Future systems should enable personalised care; sustain meaningful work and relationships; facilitate meaning-making; and promote agency, agility, and flexibility to enable GPs to utilise, adapt, and cultivate expertise. ### Competing Interest Statement Elizabeth I Lamb sits on the Royal College of GPs Council as North East England representative. ### Funding Statement This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR), project no. 593. Elizabeth I Lamb is funded as an NIHR Doctoral Fellow 303014. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Our CMOC analysis and supporting evidence are available in the online supplement.

Introduction There are not enough general practitioners (GPs) in the UK National Health Service. This problem is worse in areas of the country where poverty and underinvestment in health and social care mean patients experience poorer health compared with wealthier regions. Encouraging more doctors to choose and continue in a GP career is a government priority. This review will examine which aspects of the healthcare system affect GP workforce sustainability, how, why and for whom.Methods and analysis A realist review is a theory-driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis, that brings together qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods research and grey literature. We will use a realist approach to synthesise data from the available published literature to refine an evidence-based programme theory that will identify the important contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that underpin observed outcomes relating to GP workforce sustainability. Our review will follow Pawson’s five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will work closely with key stakeholders and embed patient and public involvement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and enhance the impact and relevance of our research.Ethics and dissemination This review does not require formal ethical approval as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be disseminated through multiple channels, including publication in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences, and other digital scholarly communication tools such as video summaries, X and blog posts.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023395583.

BACKGROUND:Social Media (SoMe) as a learning tool, though ubiquitous in society and popular within medical education, is often criticised as superficial. Its limitless output has been blamed for encouraging shorter attention spans and shirking in-depth reflection. The evidence base is itself superficial and lacking rigour or meaning. We aimed to consider a theoretical basis for how 'quality' learning may happen on such platforms. Our findings then informed the construction of a taxonomy for SoMe learning. METHODS:We conducted a qualitative interview study of United Kingdom (UK) medical students using a theory-informed inductive study design. The research question was: 'How do medical students conceptualise quality of learning on social media?'. We purposively sampled participants from responses to a short survey collecting demographic and SoMe usage data. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis and informed by Blooms taxonomy, connectivism and communities of practice (CoP) theories. RESULTS:We received survey responses from 118 medical students across 25 UK medical schools. From these, 13 participants were recruited to individual semi-structured interviews. We constructed three themes through framework analysis of interview data: cognitive hacking, professional identity reflection and safety, control and capital. DISCUSSION:Quality SoMe learning may be conceptualised as a socially connected process, built upon constantly evolving networks but inexorably influenced by fluctuating hierarchy within learner-centric CoP. Educators and institutions may support high-quality learning for students through engagement which promotes community development, and safe, listening environments which foster professional identity formation.

BACKGROUND:UK general practice has been described as being in crisis. A shortage and exodus of GPs is an urgent and challenging problem, attracting significant media attention, widespread public debate, and policy action. AIM:Our review aims to examine which aspects of the healthcare system affect GP workforce sustainability, how, why, and for whom. METHOD:A realist review is an interpretive, theory-driven approach to evidence synthesis, that brings together data from quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and the wider grey literature (e.g., policy documentation). Using this data allows us to examine a diverse range of evidence with a clear focus on understanding factors which support (or hinder) GP workforce sustainability, how these are shaped by contexts, and the mechanisms that underpin them. We identify important individual and system-level contexts that may be amenable to change. RESULTS:We present our emerging findings in the form of a programme theory which explores human connection with patients, colleagues, and across organisations, gaining intellectual enrichment and learning systems comprising socially-situated knowledge. Relational continuity is key across these, supporting GP workforce sustainability. Challenges include standardisation, alienation and professional loneliness, inflexible organisation, and restrictive technologies. CONCLUSION:Our research generates new knowledge about the interdependencies between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. The findings can inform strategies and interventions intended to support, facilitate, and assist the GP workforce in delivering equitable and effective patient care. We identify critical gaps in knowledge and prioritise the expectations for scope and nature of future GP work and retention strategies.

“The twelve tips presented here provide strategies for coproducers to foster equity, combine skills and knowledge, and promote collaboration to drive innovation and develop better learning solutions.” Twelve tips for optimising learning for postgraduate doctors in the operating theatre Benjamin D. Chatterton, Nikhil Sharma, Eliot L. Rees, Lisa Hadfield-Law, Paul J. Jermin, Robin Banerjee and Nigel T. Kiely

Learning in the operating theatre forms a critical part of postgraduate medical education. Postgraduate doctors present a diverse cohort of learners with a wide range of learning needs that will vary by their level of experience and curriculum requirements. With evidence of both trainee dissatisfaction with the theatre learning experience and reduced time spent in the operating theatre, which has been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is vital that every visit to the operating theatre is used as a learning opportunity. We have devised 12 tips aimed at both learners and surgeons to optimise learning in the operating theatre, set out into four domains: educational context, preparation, learning in theatre, feedback and reflection. These tips have been created by a process of literature review and acknowledgment of established learning theory, with further discussion amongst surgical trainees, senior surgical faculty, surgical educators and medical education faculty.

Introduction Scholarship is a key activity in health professions education (HPE). When disseminating scholarly work, how one selects the journal to which they submit is often argued to be a key determinant of subsequent success. To draw more evidence-based recommendations in this regard, we surveyed successful scholars working in HPE regarding their perspectives and experiences with journal selection. Methods We conducted an international survey of HPE scholars, investigating their decisions regarding journal choice. Corresponding authors were identified from a sample of 4000 papers published in 2019 and 2020. They were invited via email with up to four reminders. We describe their experience and use principle component and regression analyses to identify factors associated with successful acceptance. Results In total, 863 responses were received (24.7% response rate), 691 of which were included in our analyses. Two thirds of respondents had their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal with revisions required in 98% of cases. We identified six priority factors when choosing journals. In descending order of importance, they were: fit, impact, editorial reputation, speed of dissemination, breadth of dissemination, and guidance from others. Authors who prioritised fit higher and who selected a journal earlier were more likely to have their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal. Discussion Based on our results we make three recommendations for authors when writing manuscripts: do not be disheartened by a revise decision, consider journal choice early in the research process, and use the fit between your manuscript and the journal as the main factor driving journal choice.

PHENOMENON:Development of teaching skills is an important aspect of medical student training. One method of developing teaching skills is participation in peer teaching with observation and feedback from peers. This study aims to explore student teachers' experiences of peer observation of teaching and how they intend to utilize this feedback.APPROACH:We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with peer tutors who had experienced peer observation of their small group teaching and subsequent feedback. The interviews were conducted by a medical student peer not involved in the peer observation of teaching scheme. They were audio recorded and transcribed. The pseudonymised transcripts were coded independently by two researchers using thematic analysis.FINDINGS:Nine students participated in interviews lasting a mean of 42 minutes. We identified three main themes: motivations for observation, experiences of observation, and responses to feedback. Students were motivated to have their teaching observed by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors: to develop their skills and competence as a teacher, in recognition of the important role this plays in their career, to provide reassurance that they are providing good quality teaching, to ensure the content of their teaching is appropriate and accurate, and to provide evidence of engagement in, and development of, teaching. Students described feeling nervous before the observations and preparing more for their teaching than they might normally, however, during the observations they felt more comfortable which they attributed to the peer-peer relationship. Students described finding the narrative feedback more useful than the quantitative elements as it provided more detail as to how they might improve. Several students described how they have used the feedback they have received on their teaching to improve subsequent sessions.INSIGHTS:Peer observation of teaching is a useful and acceptable method of providing feedback on student teaching and recipients intend to use this feedback to improve their teaching.

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who were educated in state funded schools are underrepresented in medicine in the UK. Widening access to medical students from these backgrounds has become a key political and research priority. It is known that medical schools vary in the number of applicants attracted and accepted from non-traditional backgrounds but the reasons for this are poorly understood. This study aims to explore what applicants value when choosing medical schools to apply to and how this relates to their socioeconomic background. We conducted a multicentre qualitative interview study, purposively sampling applicants and recent entrants based on socioeconomic background, stage of application and medical school of application. We recruited participants from eight UK medical schools. Participants attended semi-structured interviews. We performed a framework analysis, identifying codes inductively from the data. Sixty-six individuals participated: 35 applicants and 31 first year medical students. Seven main themes were identified; course style, proximity to home, prestige, medical school culture, geographical area, university resources, and fitting in. These were prioritised differently depending on participants' background. Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds described proximity to home as a higher priority. This was typically as they intended to be living at home for at least part of the course. Those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more concerned with the perceived prestige of medical schools. Since medicine is a highly selective course, only offered at a minority of UK higher education institutions, these differences in priorities may help explain observed differential patterns of medical school applications and success rates by applicant social background.

Purpose To generate a large cohort of those in 2019 seriously considering applying to study Medicine, collecting data on a range of socioeconomic and other demographic factors that influence choice of medical schools and to link to other datasets to form a longitudinal study of progress through medical school and careers in medicine. Design Cross-sectional questionnaire studies, part of the longitudinal UK Medical Applicant Cohort Study (UKMACS). Setting UK medical school admissions in 2020. Participants UK residents aged 16+ and seriously considering applying to study Medicine. The cohort was primarily drawn from those registering in 2019 for the U(K)CAT (University Clinical Aptitude Test (formerly the UK Clinical Aptitude Test)) with additional potential applicants responding to an open call. Participants consented to their data being linked within the UK Medical Education Database. Findings to date UKMACS Wave 1 questionnaire respondents consisted of 6391 consenting respondents from across the UK. In 2019, 14 980 of the 17 470 UK-domiciled medicine applicants were first-time applicants. The questionnaires show that many of these applicants have a need for more help and guidance to make informed choices, with less advantaged groups reporting themselves as being at a disadvantage when applying due to limited understanding of information and limited access to guidance to enable informed and effective decision-making. Future plans To link the cohort with successive Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and other datasets to analyse outcomes of applications and establish national longitudinal evidence to understand how medical choices are made and how they impact on educational, career and workforce outcomes.

Background COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. Methods The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. Results One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). Conclusions This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.

Introduction There are over 3.81 billion worldwide active social media (SoMe) users. SoMe are ubiquitous in medical education, with roles across undergraduate programmes, including professionalism, blended learning, wellbeing and mentoring. Previous systematic reviews took place before recent explosions in SoMe popularity and revealed a paucity of high-quality empirical studies assessing its effectiveness in medical education. This review aimed to synthesise evidence regarding SoMe interventions in undergraduate medical education, to identify features associated with positive and negative outcomes. Methods Authors searched 31 key terms through seven databases, in addition to references, citation and hand searching, between 16 June and 16 July 2020. Studies describing SoMe interventions and research on exposure to existing SoMe were included. Title, abstract and full paper screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Included papers were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and/or the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) instrument. Extracted data were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Results 112 studies from 26 countries met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included studies had not significantly improved since 2013. Engagement and satisfaction with SoMe platforms in medical education are described. Students felt SoMe flattened hierarchies and improved communication with educators. SoMe use was associated with improvement in objective knowledge assessment scores and self-reported clinical and professional performance, however evidence for long term knowledge retention was limited. SoMe use was occasionally linked to adverse impacts upon mental and physical health. Professionalism was heavily investigated and considered important, though generally negative correlations between SoMe use and medical professionalism may exist. Conclusions Social media is enjoyable for students who may improve short term knowledge retention and can aid communication between learners and educators. However, higher-quality study is required to identify longer-term impact upon knowledge and skills, provide clarification on professionalism standards and protect against harms.

When we hear 'mixed methods', we typically think of studies that combine quantitative and qualitative data. In this chapter, we put forward the idea that mixed methods are about mixing and combining various types of techniques, analyses, perspectives, data collection methods and, most of all, a variety of different types of data including much more than the qualitative/quantitative divide. We start by discussing what mixed methods means and then, using two research projects, illustrate the strengths enjoyed and the challenges encountered when mixing methods and data types. Both projects made use of large datasets and longitudinal studies, containing a mix of quantitative and qualitative data to describe and understand their subjects of study. Practical considerations placed limits on collecting primary data, making it essential to bring into the mix data collected outside of the project – by our definition, secondary data. With research in the real world, what works for one project will not necessarily work for another project, and so we have presented the projects as examples of actual practice and challenges faced rather than axioms of good practice.

The novel coronavirus disease was declared a pandemic in March 2020, which necessitated adaptations to medical education. This systematic review synthesises published reports of medical educational developments and innovations that pivot to online learning from workplace-based clinical learning in response to the pandemic. The objectives were to synthesise what adaptations/innovation were implemented (description), their impact (justification), and 'how' and 'why' these were selected (explanation and rationale).The authors systematically searched four online databases up to December 21, 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, performed data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias. Our findings are reported in alignment with the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting in healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement and BEME guidance.Fifty-five articles were included. Most were from North America (n = 40), and nearly 70% focused on undergraduate medical education (UGME). Key developments were rapid shifts from workplace-based learning to virtual spaces, including online electives, telesimulation, telehealth, radiology, and pathology image repositories, live-streaming or pre-recorded videos of surgical procedures, stepping up of medical students to support clinical services, remote adaptations for clinical visits, multidisciplinary team meetings and ward rounds. Challenges included lack of personal interactions, lack of standardised telemedicine curricula and need for faculty time, technical resources, and devices. Assessment of risk of bias revealed poor reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content.This review highlights the response of medical educators in deploying adaptations and innovations. Whilst few are new, the complexity, concomitant use of multiple methods and the specific pragmatic choices of educators offers useful insight to clinical teachers who wish to deploy such methods within their own practice. Future works that offer more specific details to allow replication and understanding of conceptual underpinnings are likely to justify an update to this review.

Abstract Background COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. Methods The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O’Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. Results One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). Conclusions This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.