Search

Introduction: Retention of general practice registrars in their training practices is important for addressing the GP workforce deficit and maldistribution of GPs. Given that rural and remote general practices are disproportionately affected by low retention, identifying the factors that promote retention may be as important as developing recruitment strategies in these areas. Quantifying the impact of relevant factors on registrar retention will enable a better understanding of how to incentivise retention and attenuate the loss of the rural workforce to other areas. We sought to establish the prevalence and associations of retention of general practice registrars in their training practices. Methods: This analysis was a component of the New alumni Experience of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT-UP) study: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of early-career GPs in conjunction with evaluation of data contemporaneously recorded as part of vocational training. Participants were former registrars of three regional training organisations delivering general practice training in New South Wales, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and Eastern Victoria, who had attained Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine between January 2016 and July 2018. The outcome measured was whether the registrar had previously worked at their current practice during vocational training. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between relevant explanatory variables and the outcome. Results: A total of 354 alumni responded (response rate 28%), of whom 322 provided data regarding previous training practice retention, with 190 (59%) having previously worked at their current practice as registrars. Among respondents who reported currently working in a regional--rural practice location (n=100), 69% reported having previously worked at their current practice during training. GPs were more likely to be retained by a practice they had trained at if it was of lower socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.91), p<0.001 for each decile of socioeconomic status) and if the practice provided two or more of home visits, nursing home visits or afterhours services (aOR 4.29 (95%CI 2.10-8.75), p<0.001). They were less likely to be retained by the practice if training was completed in a regional-rural area (aOR 0.35 (95%CI 0.17-0.72), p=0.004). Conclusion: Regional--rural training location is associated with reduced odds of subsequent retention of general practice registrars. This is occurring despite significant government investment in expansion of general practice training in regional and rural areas. The practice factor most strongly associated with GP retention was the provision of out-of-practice and after-hours care. There may be altruistic, rather than monetary, reasons that explain this finding. Such training opportunities, if provided to all trainees, especially in regional and rural areas, would be a learning opportunity, a way of promoting holistic community-based care and an incentive for subsequent retention within the practice and community as an established GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To establish prevalence and associations of provision of nursing home visits (NHV) and home visits (HV) by early‐career specialist GPs. Of particular interest were associations of rurality with performing NHVs and HVs. Methods: A cross‐sectional study. Design: A questionnaire‐based study. Setting: Australian general practice. Participants: Early‐career specialist GPs, practising in Australia, who attained Fellowship between January 2016 and July 2018, inclusive, having completed GP training in NSW, the ACT, Eastern Victoria or Tasmania. Main Outcome Measures: Current provision of NHV and HV. Results: NHV were provided by 34% of participants (59% in rural areas) and HV by 41% of participants (60% in rural areas). Remote, rural or regional practice location, as compared to major‐city practice, was strongly associated with performing NHV as an early‐career specialist GP; multivariable OR 5.87 (95% CI: 2.73, 12.6), p < 0.001, and with the provision of HV; multivariable OR 3.64 (95% CI: 1.63, 8.11), p = 0.002. Rurality of GP training (prior to attaining Fellowship) was significantly univariably associated with providing NHV and with providing HV as an early‐career specialist GP. On multivariable analyses, these were no longer statistically significant. Conclusion: Early‐career specialist GPs located in regional/remote areas are more likely than their urban colleagues to provide NHV and HV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Underperforming trainees requiring remediation may threaten patient safety and are challenging for vocational training programs. Decisions to institute remediation are high-stakes--remediation being resource-intensive and emotionally demanding on trainees. Detection of underperformance requiring remediation is particularly problematic in general (family) practice. We sought to establish early-training assessment instruments predictive of general practice (GP) trainees' subsequently requiring formal remediation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of trainees from a large Australian regionally-based GP training organization. The outcome factor was requirement for formal remediation. Independent variables were demographic factors and a range of formative assessments conducted immediately prior to or during early-stage training. Analyses employed univariate and multivariate logistic regression of each predictor assessment modality with the outcome, adjusting for potential confounders. Of 248 trainees, 26 (10.5%) required formal remediation. Performance on the Colleague Feedback Evaluation Tool (entailing feedback from a trainee's clinical colleagues on clinical performance, communication and probity) and External Clinical Teaching Visits (half-day sessions of the trainee's clinical consultations observed directly by an experienced GP), along with non-Australian primary medical qualification, were significantly associated with requiring remediation. There was a non-significant trend for association with performance on the Doctors Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (patient feedback on interpersonal elements of the consultation). There were no significant associations with entry-selection scores or formative exam or assessment scores. Our finding that "in vivo" assessments of complex behaviour, but not "in vitro" knowledge-based assessments, predict need for remediation is consistent with theoretical understanding of the nature of remediation decision-making and should inform remediation practice in GP vocational training.

Introduction: Access to after‐hours care (AHC) is an important aspect of general practice service provision. Objective: To establish the prevalence and associations of early‐career GPs' provision of AHC. Design: An analysis of data from the New alumni Experiences of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT‐UP) cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study. Participants were early‐career GPs (6‐month to 2‐year post‐Fellowship) following the completion of GP vocational training in NSW, the ACT, Victoria or Tasmania. The outcome factor was 'current provision of after‐hours care'. Associations of the outcome were established using multivariable logistic regression. Findings: Three hundred and fifty‐four early‐career GPs participated (response rate 28%). Of these, 322 had responses available for analysis of currently performing AHC. Of these observations, 128 (40%) reported current provision of AHC (55% of rural participants and 32% of urban participants). On multivariable analysis, participants who provided any AHC during training were more likely to be providing AHC (odds ratio (OR) 5.51, [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.80–10.80], p < 0.001). Current rural location and in‐training rural experience were strongly associated with currently providing AHC in univariable but not multivariable analysis. Discussion: Early‐career GPs who provided AHC during training, compared with those who did not, were more than five times more likely to provide after‐hours care in their first 2 years after gaining Fellowship, suggesting participation in AHC during training may have a role in preparing registrars to provide AHC as independent practitioners. Conclusion: These findings may inform future GP vocational training policy and practice concerning registrars' provision of AHC during training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retention of general practice registrars in their training practices is important for addressing the GP workforce deficit and maldistribution of GPs. Given that rural and remote general practices are disproportionately affected by low retention, identifying the factors that promote retention may be as important as developing recruitment strategies in these areas. Quantifying the impact of relevant factors on registrar retention will enable a better understanding of how to incentivise retention and attenuate the loss of the rural workforce to other areas. We sought to establish the prevalence and associations of retention of general practice registrars in their training practices., Methods: This analysis was a component of the New alumni Experience of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT-UP) study: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of early-career GPs in conjunction with evaluation of data contemporaneously recorded as part of vocational training. Participants were former registrars of three regional training organisations delivering general practice training in New South Wales, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and Eastern Victoria, who had attained Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine between January 2016 and July 2018. The outcome measured was whether the registrar had previously worked at their current practice during vocational training. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between relevant explanatory variables and the outcome., Results: A total of 354 alumni responded (response rate 28%), of whom 322 provided data regarding previous training practice retention, with 190 (59%) having previously worked at their current practice as registrars. Among respondents who reported currently working in a regional-rural practice location (n=100), 69% reported having previously worked at their current practice during training. GPs were more likely to be retained by a practice they had trained at if it was of lower socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.91), p<0.001 for each decile of socioeconomic status) and if the practice provided two or more of home visits, nursing home visits or after-hours services (aOR 4.29 (95%CI 2.10-8.75), p<0.001). They were less likely to be retained by the practice if training was completed in a regional-rural area (aOR 0.35 (95%CI 0.17-0.72), p=0.004)., Conclusion: Regional-rural training location is associated with reduced odds of subsequent retention of general practice registrars. This is occurring despite significant government investment in expansion of general practice training in regional and rural areas. The practice factor most strongly associated with GP retention was the provision of out-of-practice and after-hours care. There may be altruistic, rather than monetary, reasons that explain this finding. Such training opportunities, if provided to all trainees, especially in regional and rural areas, would be a learning opportunity, a way of promoting holistic community-based care and an incentive for subsequent retention within the practice and community as an established GP.