Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Identifying GP trainees’ priorities in simulation training: a questionnaire to aid course development in Scotland
  1. Emma Claire Phillips,
  2. Sarah Lavery,
  3. Jamie Dickson
  1. Scottish Centre for Simulation and Clinical Human Factors, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Emma Claire Phillips, Scottish Centre for Simulation and Clinical Human Factors, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert FK5 4WR, UK; e.c.phillips{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Simulation has been shown to be an effective method of delivering training in the management of acutely unwell patients. General practitioner (GP) trainees are a group in whom simulation training could contribute to their professional development. This project aimed to explore the potential impact of a simulation course for this group and to ascertain what trainees identified as their main training priorities regarding care of the acutely ill patient. A questionnaire was sent to GP trainees in Scotland to explore opinions on simulation through quantitative confidence scores and used qualitative free-text responses to identify their training priorities. Two-hundred and three GP trainees completed the questionnaire. They reported middle-to-low confidence levels in dealing with acutely unwell patients in the GP practice. Eighty-six per cent felt that simulation would be an effective method to increase confidence. The top five conditions identified as training priorities were: anaphylaxis, acute asthma, acute coronary syndromes, paediatric emergencies and cardiac arrest, and trainees highlighted the challenges specific to the primary care setting. GP trainees in Scotland would value simulation training and have identified their training priorities. These findings will be used to develop a simulation course for GP trainees in Scotland.

  • simulation
  • general practice
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors ECP: contributed to the design of this paper; questionnaire design; data collection; analysis of the data collected; drafting of paper; revisions to paper; approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. SL: contributed to the design of this paper; questionnaire design; analysis of the data collected; drafting of paper; approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. JD: contributed to the design of this paper; questionnaire design; drafting of paper; approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.