Comparing international postgraduate training and healthcare context with the UK to streamline overseas GP recruitment: four case studies

BJGP Open

卷:4

John Campbell¹  Adrian Freeman²  Leon Poltawski³  Jeffrey Lambert³  Emily Fletcher³  Kamila Hawthorne⁴  Emma Pitchforth⁵ 

[1] Professor of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK;

[2] Professor of Medical Education, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK;

[3] Research Fellow, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK;

[4] Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK;

[5] Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow in Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK;

关键词: postgraduate education;    education;    licensure;    appraisal and revalidation;    research methods;    general practitioners;   

DOI  :  10.3399/bjgpopen20X101034

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Background: There are ambitious overseas recruitment targets to alleviate current GP shortages in the UK. GP training in European Economic Area (EEA) countries is recognised by the General Medical Council (GMC) as equivalent UK training; non-EEA GPs must obtain a Certificate of Eligibility for General Practice Registration (CEGPR), demonstrating equivalence to UK-trained GPs. The CEGPR may be a barrier to recruiting GPs from non-EEA countries. It is important to facilitate the most streamlined route into UK general practice while maintaining registration standards and patient safety. Aim: To apply a previously published mapping methodology to four non-EEA countries: South Africa, US, Canada, and New Zealand. Design & setting: Desk-based research was undertaken. This was supplemented with stakeholder interviews. Method: The method consisted of: (1) a rapid review of 13 non-EEA countries using a structured mapping framework, and publicly available website content and country-based informant interviews; (2) mapping of five ‘domains’ of comparison between four overseas countries and the UK (healthcare context, training pathway, curriculum, assessment, and continuing professional development (CPD) and revalidation). Mapping of the domains involved desk-based research. A red, amber, or green (RAG) rating was applied to indicate the degree of alignment with the UK. Results: All four countries were rated ‘green’. Areas of differences that should be considered by regulatory authorities when designing streamlined CEGPR processes for these countries include: healthcare context (South Africa and US), CPD and revalidation (US, Canada, and South Africa), and assessments (New Zealand). Conclusion: Mapping these four non-EEA countries to the UK provides evidence of utility of the systematic method for comparing GP training between countries, and may support the UK’s ambitions to recruit more GPs to alleviate UK GP workforce pressures.

【 授权许可】

Unknown