Perceptions and experiences of trainers and trainees of UK workplace-based assessment for general practice licensing: a mixed methods survey.

BACKGROUND: Workplace-Based Assessment (WPBA) forms a major component of the UK General Practitioner (GP) licensing, together with knowledge and clinical skills examination. WPBA includes Case-based Discussion, Consultation Observation Tool, Mini-Consultation Exercise, Multisource Feedback, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Clinical Examination and Procedural Skills, Clinical Supervisor's Report, and Educational Supervisor Review. We aimed to investigate GP trainees' and trainers' perceptions and experiences of WPBA regarding validity and fairness. METHODS: We used a national online survey, with Likert-scaled and free-text responses, to a convenience sample of GP trainees and trainers, on perceptions and experiences of WPBA. Analysis included descriptive statistics, scale development, and regression models to investigate factors associated with attitudes towards WPBA, with thematic analysis of free text responses supported by NVivo 12. RESULTS: There were 2,088 responses from 1,176 trainees and 912 trainers. Both groups were generally positive towards WPBA, with trainers more positive or similar to trainees towards individual assessments. In a multivariable regression model, accounting for sex, ethnicity and country of primary medical qualification, trainees were significantly less positive (p < 0.001) while international medical graduates (IMGs) trained outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were significantly more (p < 0.001) positive towards WPBA. Qualitative analysis revealed varying concerns about validity and relevance, assessment burden, potential for bias, fairness to protected characteristics groups, gaps in assessment, and perceptions of individual assessments. DISCUSSION: Trainers' greater positivity towards elements of WPBA accords with their role as assessors. Despite concerns about bias, IMGs from outside the EEA were significantly more positive towards WPBA.

Using GP trainees as role players as a teaching/training tool for established GP trainers.

This work aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of using GP trainees in place of professional actors, to role-play trainees with 'difficulties' or various challenging characteristics, as an educational tool for skills development of experienced GP trainers. The context was a residential experienced GP trainers' course and the role players were local ST3 GP trainees. Professional actors have been used for this purpose for many years in medical education at all levels, particularly in teaching communication and consultation skills in the Thames Valley area of the UK. We wanted to trial and evaluate whether using GP trainees themselves, with their own more authentic 'hinterland' of experience, (but no acting training) would be as, or more, effective than using actors. The exercise was successful and showed, through post-course feedback (immediate written feedback and later on-line questionnaire), that the use of trainees was considered by the delegates to be an effective, adaptable and realistic training tool, and more so than using professional actors. The trainees also reported educational benefit from the experience.

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.

Performance of ethnic minority versus White doctors in the MRCGP assessment 2016-2021: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Differential attainment has previously been suggested as being due to subjective bias because of racial discrimination in clinical skills assessments. AIM: To investigate differential attainment in all UK general practice licensing tests comparing ethnic minority with White doctors. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study of doctors in GP specialty training in the UK. METHOD: Data were analysed from doctors' selection in 2016 to the end of GP training, linking selection, licensing, and demographic data to develop multivariable logistic regression models. Predictors of pass rates were identified for each assessment. RESULTS: A total of 3429 doctors entering GP specialty training in 2016 were included, with doctors of different sex (female 63.81% versus male 36.19%), ethnic group (White British 53.95%, minority ethnic 43.04%, and mixed 3.01%), country of primary medical qualification (UK 76.76% versus non-UK 23.24%), and declared disability (disability declared 11.98% versus not declared 88.02%). Multi-Specialty Recruitment Assessment (MSRA) scores were highly predictive for GP training end-point assessments, including the Applied Knowledge Test (AKT), Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA), Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA), and Workplace-Based Assessment (WPBA) and Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP). Ethnic minority doctors did significantly better compared with White British doctors in the AKT (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 4.10, P = 0.042). There were no significant differences on other assessments: CSA (OR 0.72, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.20, P = 0.201), RCA (OR 0.48, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.32, P = 0.156), or WPBA-ARCP (OR 0.70, 95% CI = 0.49 to 1.01, P = 0.057). CONCLUSION: Ethnic background did not reduce the chance of passing GP licensing tests once sex, place of primary medical qualification, declared disability, and MSRA scores were accounted for.