Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
The Back Pages

Competent but Not Confident?

Daniel Edgcumbe
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (581): 933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X544168
Daniel Edgcumbe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Newly qualified GPs are not as well prepared as they used to be. They are ‘competent but not confident’. ‘General practice is different these days’, ‘it is more complicated now’. These were some of the arguments trotted out by some senior members of the College at the 2010 annual RCGP conference in Harrogate, who support the extension of GP training from 3 years to 5.

In recent years there has been a huge investment by the College in the education of its trainees. We now have a formal curriculum. There are workplace-based assessments. Patient satisfaction questionnaires mean direct patient feedback is a feature of modern training. These tools are combined with a rigorous and structured process of educational oversight, involving frequent formal reviews and reports from clinical supervisors.

Despite this educational tour de force, newly qualified GPs are considered by the College to be inadequately equipped to deal with life outside of the VTS.

Some might consider this an indictment of the curriculum and assessment system; but for the real answer, we must look away from the soaring educational rhetoric to the more humdrum actuality of everyday training.

Current GP training schemes are formulated to meet the needs of the service and not those of trainees. Some are excellent, with innovative training posts offering trainees customised learning, truly designed to meet their needs. However, standards of training are patchy. Programmes are all too often rigidly inflexible and many have significant omissions.

In my own deanery, an emergency department that has lost accreditation for the training of emergency physicians retains its approval as a suitable place for training GPs. The message this sends to trainees (and incidentally, other medical Colleges) is that GP trainees can be slotted in to the jobs that no- one else wants to do, or that offer such a poor training experience no other College will endorse.

New entrants to general practice training, perhaps more than in any other specialty come from a diverse range of backgrounds. Making reference to the Kennedy review,1 Steve Field, at the RCGP 2010 conference branded it a ‘disgrace’ that only 40% of trainees have a paediatrics attachment. However former paediatric registrars with many years of experience looking after children are required to undertake placements in paediatrics as part of their training schemes, while their colleagues who may have barely set eyes on a child before are not afforded such opportunities. This is simply demented.

There is a gap between theory and practice. It would be easy to lose focus and to forget the intentions of training. We must not allow that division to widen. The College recently announced that the curriculum is to be revised to include sustainability.2 This is voguishness of the worst kind, subjugating the crucial function of education to the caprices of the day.

There are practical reasons for not extending GP training: it would be unaffordable; it would almost certainly have an adverse effect on recruitment — applications to training have already dropped from 9000 in 2008 to 5500 in 2010, barely exceeding the number of places on offer.

It is also debatable whether the confidence desired of trainees could ever be attained by further supervised practice. The best place to learn about independent clinical practice is in independent clinical practice. If one is always having one’s hand held, it may be harder to finally let go.

However, all these are overshadowed by one fundamental truth: before we extend training to 5 years, we need to take a long hard look at what is happening in 3. GP training can be like a sausage factory, and merely slowing down the conveyor belt will not make for better bangers.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    Getting it right for children and young people: Overcoming cultural barriers in the NHS so as to meet their needs, A review by Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_119445 (accessed 5 Nov 2010).
  2. ↵
    1. Sell S
    RCGP curriculum to include ‘green’ issues, http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/1007802/RCGP-curriculum-include-green-issues/ (accessed 5 Nov 2010).
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (581)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 581
December 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Competent but Not Confident?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
Citation Tools
Competent but Not Confident?
Daniel Edgcumbe
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (581): 933. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X544168

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Competent but Not Confident?
Daniel Edgcumbe
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (581): 933. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X544168
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • The ethics of listening and responding to patients' narratives: implications for practice
  • How big is your society?
  • Evidence-based medicine and Web 2.0: friend or foe?
Show more The Back Pages

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

 

Register by 10 December and save 15% at the BJGP Research Conference, 12 March 2020

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Blog
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2019 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242