Consistency and reliability of judgements by assessors of case based discussions in general practice specialty training programmes in the United Kingdom.

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.

Evaluating the UK's first national prescribing assessment for GPs in training using an online survey.

BACKGROUND: GP trainees may not have experienced a systematic and comprehensive education in safe prescribing. Therefore, a self-assessment prescribing review was developed. AIM: To determine whether the assessment was feasible, had face validity, and did not disadvantage particular groups of participants. DESIGN & SETTING: An online survey that evaluates the opinions of GPs in training of a prescribing assessment in the UK. All full-time UK trainees who started their final year of GP training in August 2019 undertook the prescribing assessment along with their trainers, after which they completed an online anonymous feedback questionnaire. METHOD: The questionnaire completed by trainees sought their opinions of the assessment, and collected ethnicity and disability data. The trainer questionnaire was similar but did not include any demographic information. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 1741 trainees and 1576 trainers. There was no evidence that ethnic group and disability were related to aspects of the review. Most of the trainees (76.4%, n = 1330) and trainers (82.0%, n = 1293) agreed or strongly agreed that the prescribing review was helpful for assessing and learning about the trainee's prescribing. However, most participants (63.2%, n = 1092) took >4 hours to review their prescriptions. A majority of trainees (90.2%, n = 1571) reported that completing the assessment had resulted in a change in their prescribing practice. CONCLUSION: The majority of trainers and trainees reported that the prescribing assessment was helpful. The study was not able to assess whether there had been an actual change in practice that resulted in an error reduction.

Is there a value to case-based discussion?

Case-based discussion (CbD) is a workplace-based assessment which is used formatively to help develop a GP trainee's performance and which will also contribute to the judgement made on a trainee's competence at the end of their training. The views of GP trainers and trainee's in their final year of training were explored quantitively to identify if CbD was of value, its limitations and whether or not it could assess a trainee's performance. The results suggest as an isolated assessment it is not possible to fully assess performance. The feedback received by the trainee did encourage the learner to develop and an improvement in performance in subsequent assessments could be demonstrated. This, however, relied on the skills and confidence of the educator in giving feedback. Further work on the development of feedback skills need to be introduced for the benefits of this assessment to be maximised.