BackgroundMiddle ear disease (otitis media) is common and frequently severe in Australian Aboriginal children. There have not been any recent large-scale surveys using clear definitions and a standardised middle ear assessment. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of middle ear disease (otitis media) in a high-risk population of young Aboriginal children from remote communities in Northern and Central Australia.Methods709 Aboriginal children aged 6–30 months living in 29 communities from 4 health regions participated in the study between May and November 2001. Otitis media (OM) and perforation of the tympanic membrane (TM) were diagnosed by tympanometry, pneumatic otoscopy, and video-otoscopy. We used otoscopic criteria (bulging TM or recent perforation) to diagnose acute otitis media.Results914 children were eligible to participate in the study and 709 were assessed (78%). Otitis media affected nearly all children (91%, 95%CI 88, 94). Overall prevalence estimates adjusted for clustering by community were: 10% (95%CI 8, 12) for unilateral otitis media with effusion (OME); 31% (95%CI 27, 34) for bilateral OME; 26% (95%CI 23, 30) for acute otitis media without perforation (AOM/woP); 7% (95%CI 4, 9) for AOM with perforation (AOM/wiP); 2% (95%CI 1, 3) for dry perforation; and 15% (95%CI 11, 19) for chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). The perforation prevalence ranged from 0–60% between communities and from 19–33% between regions. Perforations of the tympanic membrane affected 40% of children in their first 18 months of life. These were not always persistent.ConclusionOverall, 1 in every 2 children examined had otoscopic signs consistent with suppurative ear disease and 1 in 4 children had a perforated tympanic membrane. Some of the children with intact tympanic membranes had experienced a perforation that healed before the survey. In this high-risk population, high rates of tympanic perforation were associated with high rates of bulging of the tympanic membrane.

Participants looked favourably upon learners teaching in general practice, and felt it could enhance learning. Suggestions were made to facilitate near-peer teaching in general practice. Further quantitative research with a larger and more diverse sample is required to determine if these results can be generalised to the wider general practice population.

BackgroundTraining bodies see teaching by junior doctors and vocational trainees in general practice (family medicine) as integral to a doctor’s role. While there is a body of literature on teacher training programs, and on peer and near-peer teaching in hospitals and universities, there has been little examination of near-peer teaching in general practice. Near-peer teaching is teaching to those close to oneself but not at the same level in the training continuum. This study investigated the perceptions of key stakeholders on near-peer teaching in general practice, their current near-peer teaching activities, and methods of recruitment and support.MethodsA national anonymous online survey was used to obtain data on Australian stakeholders’ perceptions of, and processes related to, near-peer teaching in general practice. Recruitment occurred via electronic invitations sent by training providers and stakeholder associations. Separate questionnaires, which were validated via several cycles of review and piloting, were developed for supervisors and learners. The survey included both fixed response and open response questions.ResultsResponses (n = 1,122) were obtained from 269 general practitioner supervisors, 221 general practice registrars, 319 prevocational trainees, and 313 medical students. All stakeholder groups agreed that registrars should teach learners in general practice, and 72 % of registrars, 68 % of prevocational trainees, and 33 % of medical students reported having done some teaching in this setting. Three-quarters of supervisors allowed learners to teach. Having another learner observe their consultations was the most common form of teaching for registrars and prevocational trainees. Eight percent of registrars received some remuneration for teaching. The approach used to determine teaching readiness and quality varied greatly between supervisors.ConclusionsNear-peer teaching was supported by the majority of stakeholders, but is underutilised and has poor structural support. Guidelines may be required to help supervisors better support learners in this role and manage quality issues related to teaching.

BackgroundThe numbers of learners seeking placements in general practice is rapidly increasing as an ageing workforce impacts on General Practitioner availability. The traditional master apprentice model that involves one-to-one teaching is therefore leading to supervision capacity constraints. Vertically integrated (VI) models may provide a solution. Shared learning, in which multiple levels of learners are taught together in the same session, is one such model. This study explored stakeholders’ perceptions of shared learning in general practices in northern NSW, Australia.MethodsA qualitative research method, involving individual semi-structured interviews with GP supervisors, GP registrars, Prevocational General Practice Placements Program trainees, medical students and practice managers situated in nine teaching practices, was used to investigate perceptions of shared learning practices. A thematic analysis was conducted on 33 transcripts by three researchers.ResultsParticipants perceived many benefits to shared learning including improved collegiality, morale, financial rewards, and better sharing of resources, knowledge and experience. Additional benefits included reduced social and professional isolation, and workload. Perceived risks of shared learning included failure to meet the individual needs of all learners. Shared learning models were considered unsuitable when learners need to: receive remediation, address a specific deficit or immediate learning needs, learn communication or procedural skills, be given personalised feedback or be observed by their supervisor during consultations. Learners’ acceptance of shared learning appeared partially dependent on their supervisors’ small group teaching and facilitation skills.ConclusionsShared learning models may partly address supervision capacity constraints in general practice, and bring multiple benefits to the teaching environment that are lacking in the one-to-one model. However, the risks need to be managed appropriately, to ensure learning needs are met for all levels of learners. Supervisors also need to consider that one-to-one teaching may be more suitable in some instances. Policy makers, medical educators and GP training providers need to ensure that quality learning outcomes are achieved for all levels of learners. A mixture of one-to-one and shared learning would address the benefits and downsides of each model thereby maximising learners’ learning outcomes and experiences.