Pilot study on the factors that influence learning by general practice registrars in central Australia.

INTRODUCTION: To counter a medical workforce shortage in rural and remote areas of Australia an increasing number of general practitioners are being trained in rural and remote areas. General practice (GP) registrars train in general practice as working apprentices alongside GP supervisors. GP registrars are allocated a training advisor to oversee their progress throughout their training. Central Australian GP registrars expressed concern to their training advisor regarding certain work partnerships with their GP supervisors. The study was carried out in response to these concerns, which were raised during a shortage of GPs in the area. The aim of the study was to explore factors in the interaction between GP registrars and GP supervisors in the context of their practices that impact on the quality of GP registrar learning in Central Australia.

METHOD: A qualitative research method was used to explore the subtleties and issues in relationships between GP registrars, their GP supervisors and their practices. The interview schedule comprised pairs of polarised, provocative statements to generate discussion. Topics for the interview schedule were derived from the data from training advisor visits and the literature. GP registrars in Central Australia who had completed at least one six-month term in general practice were eligible for the study. Five female GP registrars participated in the study. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and checked by the participants before the interview material became the research record.

RESULTS: The interview schedule generated considerable discussion as planned. The structures that determine GP income were seen as a barrier to GP registrar learning in Central Australia. The registrars reported that the fee-for-service model prevented them capitalising on learning opportunities both inside and outside their designated general practice. The GP registrars considered their training was compromised by the need to provide clinical service during a time of workforce shortage. Adaptation to a practice was seen as an important skill for GP registrars to learn, providing this did not compromise a registrar's own ethical and professional values. Learning was optimised by agreement between GP registrars and GP supervisors on the teaching subjects, and a mix of opportunistic and planned teaching sessions. Geographical isolation was perceived to have had a significant negative impact on GP registrar learning but one GP registrar discussed how this could be turned into a positive factor.

CONCLUSION: GP registrars reported learning best by providing a clinical service with ready access to a supportive GP supervisor. Workforce pressures in Central Australia at the time of this pilot study reduced the GP supervisors' ability to support GP registrars, especially in a fee-for-service model of health care. GP registrars should be placed in practices where they will receive experience, training and education rather than be allocated to areas of workforce shortage. Changes to the remuneration system for GP registrars and GP supervisors could be considered to enable GP registrars to capitalise on the learning opportunities in remote clinical practice.