Typologies of education and training pathways for general practitioners: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Variation in medical education and training amongst countries is well reported but evidence syntheses of similarities and differences are rare. We developed a typology of education and training pathways for General Practitioners (or equivalent) based on a scoping review of international peer-reviewed literature.

Methods: Applying search terms such as ‘General practice’ or ‘Family medicine’ and ‘medical education or training’ in Ovid Medline, Embase, and ERIC, identified studies published since 2010 describing education and training pathways for GPs. Inclusion criteria were used to select studies for data extraction and thematic analysis to characterise distinct typologies.

Results: 90 articles were included in the scoping review of which 47 discussed both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and three typologies based on GPs’ role in the healthcare system identified:

‘Gatekeeper’: Patients cannot access secondary or tertiary service without GP referral.

‘Doctor of choice’: Patients can choose to see a specialist and access secondary or tertiary care directly.

‘Team member’: Patients can access a network of health professionals in the community.

Conclusion: The typology provides a reference for medical educators and policymakers. Conceptualising the diversity in education and training pathways can inform the implementation of educational and training transformation for GPs in different contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• General practitioners
• training pathways
• family doctors

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the library support team of the University of Exeter who helped with our search strategy.

Contributors

JH designed the work as a part of her doctoral studies, with substantial input from two authors (KM and VB). JH led the search and KM and VB contributed to the analysis and the various rounds of interpretation. JH led the write-up, with all authors contributing to subsequent drafts and giving final approval for the version to be published. JH is accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Ethical approval

inapplicable

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

The authors have no funding to report.