Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFletcher, E
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, J
dc.contributor.authorPitchforth, E
dc.contributor.authorFreeman, A
dc.contributor.authorPoltawski, L
dc.contributor.authorLambert, J
dc.contributor.authorHawthorne, K
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-25T07:17:25Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-10
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: There are ambitious overseas recruitment targets to alleviate current GP shortages in the UK. GP training in European Economic Area (EEA) countries is recognised by the General Medical Council (GMC) as equivalent UK training; non-EEA GPs must obtain a Certificate of Eligibility for General Practice Registration (CEGPR), demonstrating equivalence to UK-trained GPs. The CEGPR may be a barrier to recruiting GPs from non-EEA countries. It is important to facilitate the most streamlined route into UK general practice while maintaining registration standards and patient safety. AIM: To apply a previously published mapping methodology to four non-EEA countries: South Africa, US, Canada, and New Zealand. DESIGN & SETTING: Desk-based research was undertaken. This was supplemented with stakeholder interviews. METHOD: The method consisted of: (1) a rapid review of 13 non-EEA countries using a structured mapping framework, and publicly available website content and country-based informant interviews; (2) mapping of five 'domains' of comparison between four overseas countries and the UK (healthcare context, training pathway, curriculum, assessment, and continuing professional development (CPD) and revalidation). Mapping of the domains involved desk-based research. A red, amber, or green (RAG) rating was applied to indicate the degree of alignment with the UK. RESULTS: All four countries were rated 'green'. Areas of differences that should be considered by regulatory authorities when designing streamlined CEGPR processes for these countries include: healthcare context (South Africa and US), CPD and revalidation (US, Canada, and South Africa), and assessments (New Zealand). CONCLUSION: Mapping these four non-EEA countries to the UK provides evidence of utility of the systematic method for comparing GP training between countries, and may support the UK's ambitions to recruit more GPs to alleviate UK GP workforce pressures.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 10 June 2020en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3399/bjgpopen20X101034
dc.identifier.grantnumber13/93/10en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/121647
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoyal College of General Practitionersen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32522751en_GB
dc.rightsCopyright © 2020, The Authors This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)en_GB
dc.subjectappraisal and revalidationen_GB
dc.subjecteducationen_GB
dc.subjectgeneral practitionersen_GB
dc.subjectlicensureen_GB
dc.subjectpostgraduate educationen_GB
dc.subjectresearch methodsen_GB
dc.titleComparing international postgraduate training and healthcare context with the UK to streamline overseas GP recruitment: four case studies.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-06-25T07:17:25Z
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final published version, also available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBJGP Openen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-11-08
exeter.funder::National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-06-10
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-06-25T07:15:55Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2020-06-25T07:17:33Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.depositExceptionpublishedGoldOA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © 2020, The Authors
This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Copyright © 2020, The Authors This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)