BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about whether higher professional education (HPE) is necessary for general practitioners (GPs) to complete their vocational training. AIM: To investigate beliefs about the need for HPE, its funding, duration, curriculum, and whether new principals (NPs) are eligible to undertake it. METHOD: A confidential postal questionnaire was sent to senior partners, GP registrars, NPs, GP trainers, and GP tutors, principally in the old South West region of England, and nationally to other 'academic' GPs. RESULTS: Of 1199 GPs, 750 (62.6%) replied; 561 (79.2%) responders agreed with the principle of HPE for NPs, especially members of the Royal College of General Practitioners and academic GPs; senior partners (SPs) were less likely to agree (all P < 0.001). Of 700 GPs, 331 (50.3%) believed that HPE should last one or two years, 66.4% agreed that NPs should have a major input into the HPE curriculum, and 54.6% agreed that health authorities should be major sources of funding, together with the postgraduate deans (29.9%). GP tutors and trainers should have the main responsibility for teaching HPE. The principal barriers to setting up a HPE course are the financial cost, the time cost, difficulty in changing the status quo, and various practical problems. The facilitatory influences are: the enthusiasm of the NPs and of their clinical colleagues, an appropriate educational environment, a high quality clinical base, and recognition that NPs have specific needs. Of 668 GPs, 89.7% would release NPs if an HPE course were free and locums were paid, although SPs were less likely to agree (P < 0.001); if the HPE course cost the practice money, then only 30.6% would release NPs. CONCLUSION: If adequately externally funded, then there is widespread support for HPE with most GPs willing to release NPs. NPs and existing GP teachers should decide the curriculum. Its aim should be to provide educational support for NPs during the transition from GP registrar to fully-trained GP principal.
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about whether higher professional education (HPE) is necessary for general practitioners (GPs) to complete their vocational training. AIM: To investigate beliefs about the need for HPE, its funding, duration, curriculum, and whether new principals (NPs) are eligible to undertake it. METHOD: A confidential postal questionnaire was sent to senior partners, GP registrars, NPs, GP trainers, and GP tutors, principally in the old South West region of England, and nationally to other 'academic' GPs. RESULTS: Of 1199 GPs, 750 (62.6%) replied; 561 (79.2%) responders agreed with the principle of HPE for NPs, especially members of the Royal College of General Practitioners and academic GPs; senior partners (SPs) were less likely to agree (all P < 0.001). Of 700 GPs, 331 (50.3%) believed that HPE should last one or two years, 66.4% agreed that NPs should have a major input into the HPE curriculum, and 54.6% agreed that health authorities should be major sources of funding, together with the postgraduate deans (29.9%). GP tutors and trainers should have the main responsibility for teaching HPE. The principal barriers to setting up a HPE course are the financial cost, the time cost, difficulty in changing the status quo, and various practical problems. The facilitatory influences are: the enthusiasm of the NPs and of their clinical colleagues, an appropriate educational environment, a high quality clinical base, and recognition that NPs have specific needs. Of 668 GPs, 89.7% would release NPs if an HPE course were free and locums were paid, although SPs were less likely to agree (P < 0.001); if the HPE course cost the practice money, then only 30.6% would release NPs. CONCLUSION: If adequately externally funded, then there is widespread support for HPE with most GPs willing to release NPs. NPs and existing GP teachers should decide the curriculum. Its aim should be to provide educational support for NPs during the transition from GP registrar to fully-trained GP principal.