RESUMO
A national undergraduate curriculum for General Practice might address current concerns regarding intellectual challenge and recruitment through articulating disciplinary knowledge and providing teaching guidance. However, there is ambivalence regarding this idea and the reasons appear incompletely understood. Aims: To better understand ambivalence towards a GP curriculum and to assess the acceptability of a new approach to national curriculum design. Methods: Questionnaire informed by Kotter's model of change, distributed to Heads of Teaching (HOTs) at each UK medical school, regarding the acceptability of both conventional and new approaches to the design of national curriculum guidelines. Qualitative and quantitative data collection with grounded theory-informed analysis of qualitative data. Results: Support for a conventional, detailed curriculum of clinical conditions is weak but there is strong support for a curriculum outlining general disciplinary principles. Identification with general practice as an independent academic discipline is important in predicting support or otherwise for any type of national curriculum. Conclusion: The identity of GP as an independent academic discipline emerges as a key issue. Further research on designing and implementing curricula that use principles rather than detailed outcomes is needed.