BACKGROUND: If higher professional education (HPE) for general practitioners (GPs) is to be implemented, then key stakeholders will need to be supportive. AIM: To investigate stakeholders' beliefs about the concept of HPE, its funding, and relationships to education and care. METHOD: Interviews were conducted using a topic guide with a health authority (HA) representative, the Local Medical Committee Chair, the Medical Audit Advisory Group Chair, a GP tutor from each of the six health authorities in the old South West region, and a senior member of the three academic GP departments and the two Royal College of General Practitioners faculties in the region. Focus groups were held with GP registrars on both vocational training schemes (VTSs) and on the one HPE course in the region. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed for emergent themes that were triangulated with the ideas expressed in the focus groups; the same topic guide was used for both. RESULTS: Of 29 key informants, 24 were interviewed. Six focus groups were held (the one HPE group and five out of the nine VTSs), after which no new ideas emerged. There is a transition period, after becoming a new principal (NP) and before becoming a fully competent independent GP, during which NPs need support. Benefits would include receiving peer support to reduce stress during the transition, enhanced non-clinical competencies, becoming a better skilled GP, avoiding the negative personal impact of a career as a GP, and helping recruitment. To improve patient care there must be a link between education and service provision. Funding is the major consideration in setting HPE; mixed funding is best coming from top-sliced General Medical Services (GMS), the HA, and regional educational funds. Barriers might include NPs' practice workload, their enthusiasm, and their partners' attitudes. The other key is a local enthusiast to initiate a course and coordinate the 'players'. The curriculum would be principally non-clinical and should be agreed by learners and the course tutor together, taking advice from various interested parties. CONCLUSION: There is a need for HPE for new NPs. It will require funding external to individual practices or NPs and a local enthusiast. Top-slicing of GMS funds is one source of funding, with additional funds from regional education and HAs. HPE must be related to service provision, to NP needs, and to vocational training.
BACKGROUND: If higher professional education (HPE) for general practitioners (GPs) is to be implemented, then key stakeholders will need to be supportive. AIM: To investigate stakeholders' beliefs about the concept of HPE, its funding, and relationships to education and care. METHOD: Interviews were conducted using a topic guide with a health authority (HA) representative, the Local Medical Committee Chair, the Medical Audit Advisory Group Chair, a GP tutor from each of the six health authorities in the old South West region, and a senior member of the three academic GP departments and the two Royal College of General Practitioners faculties in the region. Focus groups were held with GP registrars on both vocational training schemes (VTSs) and on the one HPE course in the region. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed for emergent themes that were triangulated with the ideas expressed in the focus groups; the same topic guide was used for both. RESULTS: Of 29 key informants, 24 were interviewed. Six focus groups were held (the one HPE group and five out of the nine VTSs), after which no new ideas emerged. There is a transition period, after becoming a new principal (NP) and before becoming a fully competent independent GP, during which NPs need support. Benefits would include receiving peer support to reduce stress during the transition, enhanced non-clinical competencies, becoming a better skilled GP, avoiding the negative personal impact of a career as a GP, and helping recruitment. To improve patient care there must be a link between education and service provision. Funding is the major consideration in setting HPE; mixed funding is best coming from top-sliced General Medical Services (GMS), the HA, and regional educational funds. Barriers might include NPs' practice workload, their enthusiasm, and their partners' attitudes. The other key is a local enthusiast to initiate a course and coordinate the 'players'. The curriculum would be principally non-clinical and should be agreed by learners and the course tutor together, taking advice from various interested parties. CONCLUSION: There is a need for HPE for new NPs. It will require funding external to individual practices or NPs and a local enthusiast. Top-slicing of GMS funds is one source of funding, with additional funds from regional education and HAs. HPE must be related to service provision, to NP needs, and to vocational training.