BACKGROUND: Summative assessment of general practitioner registrars is to be introduced in September 1996, one component of which will be a report by the trainer. Standards must be set and guidance provided as to the most appropriate ways of obtaining evidence for the trainer's assessment. AIM: The first aim of this study was to set consensus minimum standards for 30 items that are likely to form the content of a trainer's report; the second aim was to provide a consensus view on the most appropriate methods of assessment to be used by trainers. METHOD: A consensus conference was held in March 1995 during which the 30 items were discussed by a group of 30 general practitioners, of whom 27 were experienced trainers. This resulted in a draft document that was circulated to the conference attenders and other experts for consultation. RESULTS: Draft minimum standards were produced for all 30 items after the consensus conference with a mean of 2.5 standards for each item. Of those involved in the consultation exercise, 82% replied. Most of the revisions suggested at this stage were of a minor nature; the only major revision was to divide one item into two, resulting in a final total of 31 items. All but one of the 80 standards could be assessed by direct observation; 41 (51%) could be assessed by tutorial-based discussion and 61 (76%) by methods specific to that standard. Trainers or their practice partners were viewed as acceptable sources of evidence for all items and hospital consultants and primary health care team members were viewed as acceptable for just over half of the items. CONCLUSION: Standards for use by trainers when providing a general practitioner report for the summative assessment of registrars have been developed by consensus conference and have been subjected to review by consultation. Acceptable methods by which registrars could be assessed against these standards, and suitable personnel who could provide evidence, have also been suggested.
BACKGROUND: Summative assessment of general practitioner registrars is to be introduced in September 1996, one component of which will be a report by the trainer. Standards must be set and guidance provided as to the most appropriate ways of obtaining evidence for the trainer's assessment. AIM: The first aim of this study was to set consensus minimum standards for 30 items that are likely to form the content of a trainer's report; the second aim was to provide a consensus view on the most appropriate methods of assessment to be used by trainers. METHOD: A consensus conference was held in March 1995 during which the 30 items were discussed by a group of 30 general practitioners, of whom 27 were experienced trainers. This resulted in a draft document that was circulated to the conference attenders and other experts for consultation. RESULTS: Draft minimum standards were produced for all 30 items after the consensus conference with a mean of 2.5 standards for each item. Of those involved in the consultation exercise, 82% replied. Most of the revisions suggested at this stage were of a minor nature; the only major revision was to divide one item into two, resulting in a final total of 31 items. All but one of the 80 standards could be assessed by direct observation; 41 (51%) could be assessed by tutorial-based discussion and 61 (76%) by methods specific to that standard. Trainers or their practice partners were viewed as acceptable sources of evidence for all items and hospital consultants and primary health care team members were viewed as acceptable for just over half of the items. CONCLUSION: Standards for use by trainers when providing a general practitioner report for the summative assessment of registrars have been developed by consensus conference and have been subjected to review by consultation. Acceptable methods by which registrars could be assessed against these standards, and suitable personnel who could provide evidence, have also been suggested.