Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities: a national survey.

CONTEXT: Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland. METHODS: This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed. RESULTS: Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.

Attitudes towards health inequalities amongst GP trainers in Glasgow, and their ideas for changes in training.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN IN THIS AREA: Recent government policy has emphasised the important role that GPs have to play in addressing health inequalities. The RCGP curriculum asserts the importance of gaining a better understanding of health inequalities during GP training. GP training in Scotland continues to take place in disproportionately affluent areas. WHAT THIS WORK ADDS: This is the first study to look at attitudes of GP trainers towards health inequalities and to explore their ideas for changes in training that may address health inequalities. There were noticeable differences in the views of GP trainers--both in terms of the causes of health inequalities and the role of primary care in tackling inequalities--depending on whether they were based in more affluent or more deprived practices. Practice rotations were suggested by all groups as a means to give GP trainees exposure to the particular challenges of both affluent and deprived practice populations. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Pilot studies of practice rotations between deprived and affluent areas would be of value. Evaluation of nMRCGP assessments (particularly the Clinical Skills Assessment, CSA) with regard to representativeness of general practice in deprived areas should be considered. Further qualitative research into the attitudes of GP trainees towards health inequalities, and GP trainers from different--less deprived--practice areas, would also be of interest. [corrected].

Medication safety: using incident data analysis and clinical focus groups to inform educational needs.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Medication-related safety incidents are a source of concern to patients, policy makers and clinicians. The role of education in improving safety-critical practices in health care is poorly appreciated. This pilot study aimed to initiate collective discussion among professional groups of clinical staff about a range of medicine-related patient safety issues which were identified from a local incident reporting system. In engaging staff to collectively reflect on reported medication incidents we attempted to uncover a deeper understanding of local contextual issues and potential educational needs. METHODS: A mixed method study was conducted involving categorical analysis of 1058 medication incident reports (Phase 1) and the use of three mixed focus groups of clinical staff (Phase 2) in three acute hospitals in one locality in NHS Scotland. RESULTS: Focus group transcript analysis produced four main themes (e.g. the medical role) and 12 related sub-themes (e.g. pharmacological education and skill mix for administration of medicines) concerning medication-related practices and possible educational interventions. CONCLUSIONS: While it is necessary to review reported incident data and disseminate the educational messages for the improvement of quality, this traditional risk management process is inadequate on its own. Reporting systems can be enhanced by collective examination of reported information about medicines by local clinical teams. We identified a strong message from the focus groups for learning about each other and from each other, and that the method piloted may be an important inter-professional mechanism for improvement.

Deprived areas: deprived of training?

Health inequalities are a UK-wide health priority, but previous studies prior to expansion in GP training showed a deficit in training numbers in deprived areas. This study set out to examine whether this is still the case, using 2009 training practice data and the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Training practices were found to be significantly less deprived and significantly larger when compared with non-training practices. Practices with training status constituted 39% of the least deprived 20% of practices, compared with 23% of the most deprived 25%. The effect of deprivation persisted when practice size was taken into account.

What is a good general practitioner (GP)? The development and evaluation of a multi-source feedback instrument for GP appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Although multi-source feedback (MSF) has been used in primary healthcare, the development of an MSF instrument specific to this setting in the UK has not been previously described. The aims of this study were to develop and evaluate an MSF instrument for GPs in Scotland taking part in appraisal. METHODS: The members of ten primary healthcare teams in the west of Scotland were asked to provide comments in answer to the question, 'What is a good GP?'. The data were reduced and coded by two researchers and questions were devised. Following content validity testing the MSF process was evaluated with volunteers using face-to-face interviews and a postal survey. RESULTS: Thirty-seven statements covering the six domains of communication skills, professional values, clinical care, working with colleagues, personality issues and duties and responsibilities were accepted as relevant by ten primary healthcare teams using a standard of 80 percent agreement. The evaluation found the MSF process to be feasible and acceptable and participants provided some evidence of educational impact. CONCLUSION: An MSF instrument for GPs has been developed based on the concept of 'the good GP' as described by the primary healthcare team. The evaluation of the resultant MSF process illustrates the potential of MSF, when delivered in the supportive environment of GP appraisal, to provide feedback which has the possibility of improving working relationships between GPs and their colleagues.

A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care.

BACKGROUND: Significant event analysis (SEA) is promoted as a team-based approach to enhancing patient safety through reflective learning. Evidence of SEA participation is required for appraisal and contractual purposes in UK general practice. A voluntary educational model in the west of Scotland enables general practitioners (GPs) and doctors-in-training to submit SEA reports for feedback from trained peers. We reviewed reports to identify the range of safety issues analysed, learning needs raised and actions taken by GP teams. METHOD: Content analysis of SEA reports submitted in an 18 month period between 2005 and 2007. RESULTS: 191 SEA reports were reviewed. 48 described patient harm (25.1%). A further 109 reports (57.1%) outlined circumstances that had the potential to cause patient harm. Individual 'error' was cited as the most common reason for event occurrence (32.5%). Learning opportunities were identified in 182 reports (95.3%) but were often non-specific professional issues not shared with the wider practice team. 154 SEA reports (80.1%) described actions taken to improve practice systems or professional behaviour. However, non-medical staff were less likely to be involved in the changes resulting from event analyses describing patient harm (p < 0.05) CONCLUSION: The study provides some evidence of the potential of SEA to improve healthcare quality and safety. If applied rigorously, GP teams and doctors in training can use the technique to investigate and learn from a wide variety of quality issues including those resulting in patient harm. This leads to reported change but it is unclear if such improvement is sustained.

The perceptions of reception staff in general practice about the factors influencing specific medication errors.

The pilot study presented here is part of a larger project identifying and investigating the factors influencing errors in prescribing and dispensing drugs known to be of high risk: prednisolone, warfarin, lisinopril, morphine, carbamazepine, digoxin and methotrexate. This work has highlighted the central role that general practice (GP) receptionists have in the prescribing process and the importance of their perspectives in understanding how medication errors occur in general practice. Receptionists within Greater Glasgow were purposively sampled from a survey of personal experience of errors involving the drugs of interest. Five one-to-one in-depth interviews and one group interview with receptionists were conducted, exploring the perceptions of receptionists about the factors that influence errors. Four themes emerged from the interviews, related to receptionists' perceptions of factors influencing errors: trust in the GP to check prescriptions; the receptionists' role of communicating with patients; workload; and the hospital-surgery link. This research illustrates the important contribution that receptionists can make to understanding how errors occur in general practice. Receptionists have responsibilities for the continuation of care by communicating with patients, doctors and external care providers and they perceive that problems in communication with these parties can develop into medicine-related errors. These findings may inform educational outcomes for receptionists including involvement in the practice's protected learning time and interpersonal skills development, as well as improved communication skills in other health professionals.

Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers.

BACKGROUND: GP appraisal is currently considered inadequate because it lacks robustness. Objective assessment of appraisal evidence is needed to enable judgements on professional performance to be made. AIM: To determine GP appraisers' views of the acceptability, feasibility, and educational impact of external peer feedback received on three core appraisal activities undertaken as part of this study. DESIGN OF STUDY: Independent peer review and cross-sectional postal questionnaire study. SETTING: NHS Scotland. METHOD: One of three core appraisal activities (criterion audit, significant event analysis, or video of consultations) was undertaken by GP appraisers and subjected to peer review by trained colleagues. A follow-up postal questionnaire elicited participants' views on the potential acceptability, feasibility, and educational impact of this approach. RESULTS: Of 164 appraisers, 80 agreed to participate; 67/80 (84%) submitted one of three appraisal materials for peer review and returned completed questionnaires. For significant event analyses (n = 44), most responders believed the peer feedback method was feasible (100%) and fair (92.5%) and would add value to appraisal (95.5%). Peer feedback on criterion audits (n = 15) was believed to be acceptable and fair (93.3%) and it was thought it would be a useful educational tool (100%). Completing a consultation video (n = 8) was perceived to be feasible as part of normal general practice (n = 5). It was unanimously agreed that assessment of videos by peers has educational impact and would help improve appraisal. CONCLUSION: This group of GP appraisers strongly supported the role of external and independent feedback by trained peers as one approach to strengthening the existing appraisal process.

External feedback in general practice: a focus group study of trained peer reviewers of significant event analyses.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peer feedback is well placed to play a key role in satisfying educational and governance standards in general practice. Although the participation of general practitioners (GPs) as reviewers of evidence will be crucial to the process, the professional, practical and emotional issues associated with peer review are largely unknown. This study explored the experiences of GP reviewers who make educational judgements on colleagues' significant event analyses (SEAs) in an established peer feedback system. METHODS: Focus groups of trained GP peer reviewers in the west of Scotland. Interviews were taped, transcribed and analysed for content. RESULTS: Consensus on the value of feedback in improving SEA attempts by colleagues was apparent, but there was disagreement and discomfort about making a dichotomous 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory' judgement. Differing views on how peer feedback should be used to compliment the appraisal process were described. Some concern was expressed about professional and legal obligations to colleagues and to patients seriously harmed as a result of significant events. Regular training of peer reviewers using several different educational methods was thought essential in enhancing or maintaining their skills. Involvement of the participants in the development of the feedback instrument and the peer review system was highly valued and motivating. CONCLUSIONS: Acting as a peer reviewer is perceived by this group of GPs to be an important professional duty. However, the difficulties, emotions and tensions they experience when making professional judgements on aspects of colleagues' work need to be considered when developing a feasible and rigorous system of educational feedback. This is especially important if peer review is to facilitate the 'external verification' of evidence for appraisal and governance.

Judging the quality of clinical audit by general practitioners: a pilot study comparing the assessments of medical peers and NHS audit specialists.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical audit informs general practitioner (GP) appraisal and will provide evidence of performance for revalidation in the UK. However, objective evidence is now required. An established peer assessment system may offer an educational solution for making objective judgements on clinical audit quality. National Health Service (NHS) clinical audit specialists could potentially support this system if their audit assessments were comparable with established medical peer assessors. The study aimed to quantify differences between clinical audit specialists and medical peer assessors in their assessments of clinical audit projects. METHODS: A comparison study of the assessment outcomes of clinical audit reports by two groups using appropriate assessment instruments was conducted. Mean scores were compared and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and limits of agreement calculated. A two-point mean difference would be relevant. RESULTS: Twelve significant event analysis (SEA) reports and 12 criterion audit projects were assessed by 11 experienced GP assessors and 10 NHS audit specialist novice assessors. For SEA, the mean score difference between groups was <1.0. The 95% CI for bias was -0.1 to 0.5 (P = 0.14). Limits of agreement ranged from -0.7 to 1.2. For criterion audit, a mean score difference of

A review of the current evidence base for significant event analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the perceived benefits and disadvantages associated with significant event analysis (SEA) and identify reported barriers and facilitating factors. METHOD: A comprehensive search of electronic databases and peer reviewed journals was conducted during June 2006. Studies which explored or measured perceptions or attitudes in relation to SEA or assessed its impact on health care quality were included. RESULTS: 27 studies were identified with most undertaken in UK general practice. Perceived benefits include: improved communication, enhanced team-working and awareness of others' contributions. SEA has a strong emotional resonance which may lead to a greater commitment to change. Multiple but unverifiable changes in practice and improvements in service quality were reported through participation. Disadvantages include concerns about litigation, reprisal, embarrassment and confidentiality. The reliability of SEA is questioned because it lacks a robust, standard structured method. Evidence of its impact on health care is severely limited. Barriers include a lack of training, poor team dynamics, failings in facilitation and leadership, selective topic choice and associated emotional demands. Facilitating factors include: effective practice in meetings; protected meeting time; a structured methodical approach; and strong team dynamics and leadership. CONCLUSION: A chasm exists between the high expectations for SEA and the lack of evidence of its impact. SEA may have some merit as a team-based educational tool. However, it may not be a reliable technique for investigating serious or complex safety issues in general practice. Policy makers need to be more explicit about the actual purpose of SEA.

Acceptability and educational impact of a peer feedback model for significant event analysis.

CONTEXT: A model of independent, external review of significant event analysis by trained peers was introduced by NHS Scotland in 1998 to support the learning needs of general practitioners (GPs). Engagement with this feedback model has increased over time, but participants' views and experiences are largely unknown and there is limited evidence of its educational impact. This is important if external feedback is to play a potential role in appraisal and future revalidation. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore aspects of the acceptability and educational impact of this external feedback model with participating GPs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine GPs. Participants were sampled to reflect their level of learning need (low, moderate or high) to gain a range of views and experiences. Transcribed interviews were analysed for content. RESULTS: This system of external peer feedback is generally acceptable to participants. It complemented and enhanced the appraisal process. External feedback had positive educational outcomes, particularly in imparting technical knowledge on how to analyse significant events. Training issues for peer reviewers were suggested that would further enhance the educational gain from participation. There was disagreement over whether this type of feedback could or should be used as supporting evidence of the quality of doctors' work to educational and regulatory authorities. CONCLUSIONS: The findings add to the evidence for the acceptability and educational impact of external review by trained peers. Aligning such a model with the current national appraisal system may provide GPs with a more robust demonstration of participation in reflective learning.

Delivering feedback on learning organization characteristics--using a Learning Practice Inventory.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Learning is recognized to be at the heart of the quality improvement process in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the challenge will be how to ensure that learning becomes embedded within the NHS culture. The aim of this study is to identify a robust feedback process and format in which practices could receive data on their responses to a Learning Practice Inventory (a diagnostic instrument designed to identify a practice's capacity for collective learning and change). METHOD: Five practices volunteered to test the instrument, and it was distributed to all members of the primary care team. A process was worked through to identify different formats for presenting scores within and between practices. The preferred method of data presentation was sought, and an evaluation gathered information on the preferred form of feedback, the usefulness of the data, the clarity of the questions and the level of interest in receiving further information. RESULTS: Eighty-five staff from five practices completed the questionnaire, and 61 individuals completed the evaluation forms. In most cases, there was a spread of scores by staff within practices and across the scale of 1-10. Medians were clustered at the learning practice end for all five practices. However, despite this skew, there were sometimes quite large differences between practices in their median scores. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that a robust feedback process on collective capacity for learning and change can be identified that is useful and feasible. A key implication is that some form of educational support is required, and this work will take place as part of an ongoing programme of research by the authors.

The assessment of criterion audit cycles by external peer review - when is an audit not an audit?

INTRODUCTION: Clinical audit has failed to fully deliver the rewards initially envisaged. Contributory factors include: an ill-defined approach to audit; the assumption that health care professionals can intuitively apply audit methods; and the lack of a system to 'quality assure' the process. A method of criterion audit was defined and developed in conjunction with an instrument to facilitate trained General Practitioner (GP) assessors in the review of colleagues' audit projects. Given the potential for improving audit practice, this study aimed to define the methodological factors that contributed to 'unsatisfactory' audits as judged by peer assessors. METHODS: West of Scotland GPs voluntarily submitted a criterion audit in a standard format for review by two trained colleagues using an assessment instrument. Audits judged unsatisfactory and associated educational feedback were subjected to content analysis. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2004, 336 audits were submitted, of which 132 (39%) were judged to be unsatisfactory. Of these, 118 audits (89%) had a methodological issue identified in the initial project design (e.g. defining criteria) that effectively invalidated the audit. 119 projects (90%) were also judged to have at least one deficiency in the data analysis or change management stages of the audit (e.g. implementing inadequate change). CONCLUSION: A range of audit method issues was found. The proportion of unsatisfactory audits may point to a larger problem beyond this sample, which may have implications for health care quality. If audit practise is to be consistent and rigorous, consideration should be given to assessing the standard of this activity.

The Learning Practice Inventory: diagnosing and developing Learning Practices in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND SETTING: This paper outlines the development of a diagnostic tool to help Primary Care general practitioner (GP) Practices diagnose the extent to which they are developing effective techniques for collective learning and if their Practice culture supports innovation. This project is undertaken by the University of St Andrews and NHS Education for Scotland. METHODS: Based on Learning Organization and Organizational Learning theory, and using a modified Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale, the Learning Practice Inventory (LPI) identifies attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and organizational arrangements associated with being a Learning Practice. The LPI is a self-assessment, fixed-choice, survey-feedback tool that surveys all Practice members. RESULTS: The survey-feedback tool empowers Practice members to view, assess and prioritize the developments they wish to make collectively to Practice life. The LPI assumes complexity and non-linearity in change processes, used longitudinally it tracks the impact of change on Practice life through time. Practitioners and Practices involved in its development give favourable feedback on the tool, and its potential usefulness. DISCUSSION: This contributes to our wider understanding in three main ways: first, it applies the ideas of Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning to health care settings. Second, as a practical advance, the tool assumes complexity, non-linearity and systemic knock-on effects during change in Primary Care. Third, it offers practitioners who work together the opportunity to share knowledge and learning in practical ways helping them to change by themselves and for themselves and their patients.

Variations in the ability of general medical practitioners to apply two methods of clinical audit: A five-year study of assessment by peer review.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical audit has a central role in the NHS clinical governance agenda and the professional appraisal of medical practitioners in the UK. However, concerns have been raised about the poor design and impact of clinical audit studies and the ability of practitioners to apply audit methods. One method of making informed judgements on audit performance is by peer review. In the west of Scotland a voluntary peer review model has been open to general practitioners since 1999, while general practice trainees are compelled to participate as part of summative assessment. The study aimed to compare the outcomes of peer review for two methods of audit undertaken by different professional and academic groups of doctors. METHODS: Participants submitted a criterion audit or significant event analysis in standard formats for review by two informed general practitioners (GPs) using appropriate instruments. Peer review outcome data and the professional status of doctors participating were generated by computer search. Differences in proportions of those gaining a satisfactory peer review for each group were calculated. RESULTS: Of 1002 criterion audit submissions, 552 (55%) were judged to be satisfactory. GP registrars were significantly more likely than GP trainers (P < 0.001) and other established GP groups (P < 0.001) to gain a satisfactory peer review. GPs in non-training practices were less likely to achieve a satisfactory review than registrars (P < 0.001) and colleagues in training practices (P < 0.001). Of 883 SEA submissions, 541 (65%) were judged as satisfactory, with all groups gaining a similar proportion of satisfactory assessments, although GP registrars may have outperformed non-training practice GPs (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of GPs may be unable to adequately apply audit methods, potentially raising serious questions about the effectiveness of clinical audit as a health care improvement policy in general medical practice.

Smoking after the age of 65 years: a qualitative exploration of older current and former smokers' views on smoking, stopping smoking, and smoking cessation resources and services.

The aim of this study was to explore older current/former smokers' views on smoking, stopping smoking, and smoking cessation resources and services. Despite the fact that older smokers have been identified as a priority group, there is currently a dearth of age-related smoking cessation research to guide practice. The study adopted a qualitative approach and used the health belief model as a conceptual framework. Twenty current and former smokers aged>or=65 years were recruited through general practices and a forum for older adults in the West of Scotland. Data were collected using a semistructured interview schedule. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and then analysed using content analysis procedures. Current smokers reported many positive associations with smoking, which often prevented a smoking cessation attempt. The majority were aware that smoking had damaged their health; however, some were not convinced of the association. A common view was that 'the damage was done', and therefore, there was little point in attempting to stop smoking. When suggesting a cessation attempt, while some health professionals provided good levels of support, others were reported as providing very little. Some of the participants reported that they had never been advised to stop smoking. Knowledge of local smoking cessation services was generally poor. Finally, concern was voiced regarding the perceived health risks of using nicotine replacement therapy. The main reasons why the former smokers had stopped smoking were health-related. Many had received little help and support from health professionals when attempting to stop smoking. Most of the former smokers believed that stopping smoking in later life had been beneficial to their health. In conclusion, members of the primary care team have a key role to play in encouraging older people to stop smoking. In order to function effectively, it is essential that they take account of older smokers' health beliefs and that issues, such as knowledge of smoking cessation resources, are addressed.

Introducing the Learning Practice--I. The characteristics of Learning Organizations in Primary Care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the first of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. Here we introduce the notion of the Learning Practice (LP) and outline the characteristics and nature of an LP, exploring cultural and structural factors in detail. METHODS: Drawing upon both theoretical concepts and empirical research into LOs in health care settings, the format, focus and feasibility of an LP is explored. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of LPs include flatter team-based structures that prioritize learning and empowered change, involve staff and are open to suggestions and innovation. Potential benefits include: timely changes in service provision that are realistic, acceptable, sustainable, and owned at practitioner level; smoother interprofessional working; and fast flowing informal communication backed up by records of key decisions to facilitate permanent learning. Critical comment on potential pitfalls and practical difficulties highlights features of the present system that hinder development: tightly defined roles; political behaviours and individual-oriented support systems; plus the ongoing difficulties involved in tolerating errors (whilst people learn). This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in the area in three main ways. First, by locating Government's desires to create health systems capable of learning within the theoretical and empirical evidence on LOs. Second, it suggests what an LP could be like and how its culture and structures might benefit both staff and patients in addition to meeting externally driven reforms and health priorities. Third, it extends the application of LO concepts to the health care sector locating the principles in bottom-up change.

Introducing the Learning Practice--II. Becoming a Learning Practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the second of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Based on a theoretical and empirical review of available evidence, here we introduce the process by which a Practice can start to become a Learning Practice (LP). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Steps taken to enhance both individual and organizational learning begin the process of moving towards a learning culture. Attention is given to the routines that can be established within the practice to make learning systematically an integral part of what the practice does. This involves focusing on all three of single-, double- and triple-loop learning. Within the paper, a distinction is made between individual, collective and organizational learning. We argue that individual and collective learning may be easier to achieve than organizational learning as processes and systems already exist within the Health Service to facilitate personal learning and development with some opportunities for collective and integrated learning and working. However, although organizational learning needs to spread beyond the LP to the wider Health Service to inform future training courses, policy and decision-making, there currently seem to be few processes by which this might be achieved. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by reviewing existing theoretical and empirical material on LOs in health care settings it provides both an informed vision and a set of practical guidelines on the ways in which a Practice could start to effect its own regime of learning, innovation and change. Second, it highlights the paucity of opportunities individual general practitioner practices have to share their learning more widely. Thirdly, it adds to the evidence base on how to apply LO theory and activate learning cultures in health care settings.