Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • 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
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Strengthening general practice by extending specialty training?

Sarah de Bever, Jettie Bont and Nynke Scherpbier
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (682): 222-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X702305
Sarah de Bever
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice/GP Specialty Training, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Roles: GP Trainee and PhD Student
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jettie Bont
Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of General Practice/GP Specialty Training, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Roles: Head, GP Specialty Training
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nynke Scherpbier
Primary Care Specialty Training Department, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Roles: Head
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
Loading

DURATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMMES IN EUROPE

European legislation obligates member states to have a full-time postgraduate GP specialty training for ≥3 years, with a minimum of 6 months spent in general practice. Across Europe, GP specialty training varies from 3 years (for example, in the UK and the Netherlands) to 6 years (Finland), with training time in general practices varying between 6 months (Austria) and 4 years (Norway). Recently, across Europe a strong movement in favour of extending the minimum duration of GP specialty training from the current 3 years to 4 or even 5 years has developed.1,2 Supporters of this measure state that this will ‘build the same level as specialty as other disciplines’ and therefore strengthen GPs’ standing across Europe.3,4 This is important because a strong primary care is needed to have a high-quality healthcare system accessible for all citizens, in which GPs function as key stakeholders.5,6 However, not every country values GPs in this way. Across Europe GPs’ positions vary from being a strong gatekeeper with free access for patients to easily accessible secondary care and paid GP visits. Another argument for extending the duration is that more time spent in training will give trainees ‘greater exposure to real world setting’, and therefore better developed competencies important for future GPs.2 Recently, extension of GP training programmes in Scotland and the West of Ireland reported positive results, whereby trainees from these programmes felt better prepared for independent practice.7,8 The extended period of general practice training in particular (2 years instead of 1) was valued by the trainees. Although we recognise that becoming a GP takes time and requires the mastery of a broad range of competencies,2,4 in this editorial we will argue that merely extending GP specialty training might not be the right measure to better prepare trainees or to enhance GPs’ standing.

DIFFERENCES IN TRAINEES’ COMPETENCIES

Individual competency development, rather than time spent in a training scheme, should determine the duration of a training programme. We have the following reasons to support this argument.

First, trainees differ with regard to obtained competencies prior to residency. For example, they may have gained previous experience as a junior doctor not in training, in a PhD programme, or in transferable work experience outside the medical field. These competencies can be developed further during their training, and this may even lead to a shortening of their time in training.

Second, trainees’ capability to master competencies depends on context.9 Most postgraduate learning occurs in the workplace, where trainees learn ‘by doing’. Clinical experiences are the foundation of trainees’ learning: trainees depend on the availability of relevant experiences to master competencies. However, workplaces are chaotic environments and therefore do not guarantee that all necessary experiences are encountered.10 It is questionable whether mere exposure will truly lead to more successful learning. Therefore, it would be better to increase the educational value of these workplaces by critically looking at the relevance of the workplace for learning primary care skills. For example, the duration of training in a GP setting could be increased at the expense of hospital training. Alternatively, self-directed learning (SDL) could be promoted or faculty development programmes organised.

A third reason is that trainees differ in their ability to learn.11 To reach the full potential a workplace offers, trainees need to engage with their learning. This engagement depends, at least partly, on trainees’ motivation and self-regulation abilities.12 Self-regulated learning focuses on setting learning goals, identifying and employing learning strategies to fulfil those goals, and reflecting on this process. Motivated trainees with well-developed self-regulation skills will learn faster and more deeply; however, not every trainee has the same motivation or abilities to regulate their learning.13 Hence, the time to learn the same competence differs between trainees and training settings.

These factors call into question the logic behind extending the GP specialty training to enhance the quality of GPs or better prepare trainees. Quality of time in practice should take priority over quantity, as the time it takes trainees to master competencies is variable.12

CUSTOMISING THE CURRICULUM

Duration of training should be based on educational needs; however, in recent history most decisions regarding time spent in training have been political in nature.14 For example, recent governmental regulations in the Netherlands forced medical specialty training to shorten their programmes by an average of 6 months in order to save costs. Of course, changing to a competence-based, time-variable GP specialty training is easier said than done, and will require time and funding.15 To fully equip future GPs with the competencies needed in our modern, fast-changing healthcare systems a more personal, customisable curriculum is needed.16 Moreover, we have to acknowledge that learning does not stop at the end of specialty training. In our view, competency-based, time-variable training may help to create GPs who are lifelong learners, deliver high-quality care, and have a high standing in their healthcare systems.

As stated before, we believe that it is time to improve GPs’ standing across Europe. Next to improving GP specialty training, this can be achieved with other measures, of which there are four components. First, it is important that students get acquainted with general practice at an early stage of their medical training. Therefore it is important to have a strong position in the pre-graduate curricula and this contributes to the positive view students have of GPs.17 Unfortunately, in some countries it is still possible to become a medical doctor without experience in a primary care setting.17 Second, as in many other specialty programmes, GP trainees should be educated in academic skills. A strong academic base and development of evidence-based guidelines will improve the quality of primary care. Third, GPs should be encouraged to keep up their knowledge and skills by continuous professional development. This can be part of a revalidation system. Finally, strengthening the GP workforce can be accomplished by creating special fields of interest to extend primary care knowledge and organisation of care. Dutch GPs, for example, can develop themselves in a specific area (for example, emergency care) and become ‘a GP with a special interest’. These GPs can support other GPs by consultation, lecturing, and contributing to the organisation of care in their field of specialisation.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we believe that imposing an extended GP programme will not automatically or necessarily lead to a better-qualified GP workforce. Quality should be prioritised over quantity. Deliberate use of time in training, with good-quality workplaces and coaching of trainees’ SDL skills, can enhance the quality of a specialty training programme. Sometimes an extension or shortening is warranted, which should always be informed by GP trainees’ educational needs. To strengthen the position of GPs, other measures, such as enhancing quality through revalidation, ensuring a strong academic standing, and developing reliable, high-quality guidelines, can be taken without changing European legislation regarding the minimum duration of GP specialty training.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rughani A,
    2. Riley B,
    3. Rendel S
    (2012) Br J Gen Pract, The future of GP specialty training: enhanced and extended. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X648972.
  2. 2.↵
    1. O’Shea EE
    (2009) Extension of training for general practice: a review of the evidence. Educ Prim Care 20(1):15–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Zarbailov N,
    2. Wilm S,
    3. Tandeter H,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Strengthening general practice/family medicine in Europe — advice from professionals from 30 European countries. BMC Fam Pract 18(1):80.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. van Zwanenberg T,
    2. Pringle M,
    3. Smail S,
    4. et al.
    (2001) The case for strengthening education and training for general practice. Br J Gen Pract 51(466):349–350.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kringos D,
    2. Boerma W,
    3. Bourgueil Y,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Br J Gen Pract, The strength of primary care in Europe: an international comparative study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X674422.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Starfield B,
    2. Shi L,
    3. Macinko J
    (2005) Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 83(3):457–502.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. O’Shea EB
    (2009) What’s another year? A qualitative evaluation of extension of general practice training in the West of Ireland. Educ Prim Care 20(3):159–166.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Agius S,
    2. Lewis B,
    3. Kirk B,
    4. et al.
    (2014) The perceived benefits of a two-year period of extended specialty training in general practice: the trainees’ perspective. Educ Prim Care 25(1):26–35.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Goldie J,
    2. Morrison J
    (2012) Br J Gen Pract, Situating general practice training in the general practice context. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X636245.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Teunissen PW,
    2. Kogan JR,
    3. Ten Cate O,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Learning in practice: a valuation of context in time-variable medical training. Acad Med 93:S22–S26.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Billett S
    (2016) Learning through health care work: premises, contributions and practices. Med Educ 50(1):124–131.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ten Cate O,
    2. Gruppen LD,
    3. Kogan JR,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Time-variable training in medicine: theoretical considerations. Acad Med 93:S6–S11.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Nothnagle M,
    2. Anandarajah G,
    3. Goldman RE,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Struggling to be self-directed: residents’ paradoxical beliefs about learning. Acad Med 86(12):1539–1544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ten Cate O
    (2017) Competency-based postgraduate medical education: past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ 34(5), Doc69.
  15. 15.↵
    1. van Rossum TR,
    2. Scheele F,
    3. Sluiter HE,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Effects of implementing time-variable postgraduate training programmes on the organization of teaching hospital departments. Med Teach 40(10):1036–1041.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Irby DM,
    2. Cooke M,
    3. O’Brien BC
    (2010) Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: 1910 and 2010. Acad Med 85(2):220–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Turkeshi E,
    2. Michels NR,
    3. Hendrickx K,
    4. Remmen R
    (2015) Impact of family medicine clerkships in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMJ Open 5(8):e008265.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (682)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 682
May 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
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.
Strengthening general practice by extending specialty training?
(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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Strengthening general practice by extending specialty training?
Sarah de Bever, Jettie Bont, Nynke Scherpbier
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (682): 222-223. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X702305

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Strengthening general practice by extending specialty training?
Sarah de Bever, Jettie Bont, Nynke Scherpbier
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (682): 222-223. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X702305
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
    • DURATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMMES IN EUROPE
    • DIFFERENCES IN TRAINEES’ COMPETENCIES
    • CUSTOMISING THE CURRICULUM
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters

More in this TOC Section

  • Time to reshape our delivery of primary care to vulnerable older adults in social housing?
  • General practice in the years ahead: relationships will matter more than ever
  • Vitamin D and COVID-19 in older age: evidence versus expectations
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

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 Life
  • 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
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

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