In contrast to other comparable countries, trainees commencing general practice in Australia can see patients without being required to contact their supervisor. To understand how patient safety in early training is managed a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was used. A lead medical educator from each of the nine Australian Regional Training Organisations (RTOs) was interviewed. Transcriptions of interviews were analysed to identify themes. RTOs do not mandate a period of direct observation of trainees and the use of safety checklists for supervision is variable and not monitored. The oversight of training practices by RTOs mirrors that of trainees by supervisors. The onus falls on those being supervised to identify the need for assistance. Despite this, lead medical educators still consider the commencement of general practice training to be safe. Other factors found potentially to impact on safety include the variability of training practices and supervision; the complex RTO-practice relationship; quota-driven selection of doctors into general practice; and the negative impact on education of the funding model. Patient safety may be improved by a period of direct observation of potential trainees prior to the commencement of general practice training and the use of checklists to encourage supervision of high risk activities.

Major system change involving closer supervision of trainee GP registrars in Australia is warranted. Change management guidelines recommend involving stakeholders in developing change. The views of those involved in general practice training about current and potential supervisory practice were explored. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a lead medical educator from nine Australian regions. Focus groups were conducted with GP supervisors and GP registrars. Transcripts from the interviews and focus groups were analysed using conventional content analysis, with themes emerging inductively from the data. The findings were that over 1–3 months, a registrar could progress from their supervisor observing all consultations through to the registrar only calling when they identify the need for help. There is strong support from registrars for this change to closer supervision, but less support from supervisors and educators. Barriers to the proposed change include high clinical demand competing with teaching capacity, inadequate payment for closer supervision and supervisors lacking skills or motivation to have a more active role in registrar supervision. If funding and logistic barriers to change are addressed, a change to a closer level of supervision is possible. A pilot study to further refine the change is indicated.

Background and objectiveCurrently when undergoing Australian general practice training, a registrar must determine when clinical supervision is needed. The aim of this study was to identify situations in early Australian general practice training requiring closer supervision and consider how this can be achieved. MethodsThe study used a qualitative approach involving 75 registrars, supervisors and medical educators from seven focus groups in Victoria and Tasmania. ResultsEighty circumstances in which a registrar should call their general practice supervisor were identified. Participants indicated the 'call for help' list should be modified early in the term after considering the registrar's prior experience, and through the term as supervision and teaching identifies readiness for independent practice. DiscussionThe size of the list developed by the focus groups reflects the breadth of general practice. It is a 'call for help' list rather than a safety checklist as it is not exclusively concerned with high-risk scenarios and includes broad triggers to call for help. The 'call for help' list is an aid to patient safety and the supervisorregistrar alliance.

No abstract