Research

‘It gives a sense of purpose’: a survey exploring GP registrars’ views on relational continuity of care

Helen Leach, Helen Atherton and Jeremy Dale
BJGP Open 2025; 9 (3): BJGPO.2025.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0001

Abstract

Background Relational continuity of care has been shown to improve patient outcomes and clinician satisfaction. However, little is known about how GP registrars, the future workforce in general practice, experience this continuity, especially in the context of evolving workforces and increasing use of remote consultations.

Aim To explore GP registrars’ views on relational continuity of care and identify personal, training, and practice factors that may influence these views, including the impact of digital or remote consulting.

Design & setting A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among GP registrars in the West Midlands, England. The survey explored registrars’ experiences and attitudes towards relational continuity, including the impact of remote consulting.

Method The survey combined Likert-scale and multiple-choice questions with free-text responses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics with logistic regression to identify personal and training factors that might influence views. Content analysis was used for qualitative data.

Results In total, 246 responses were received (estimated 14.5% response rate). Registrars valued relational continuity, particularly for patients with long-term conditions. Barriers such as rotational training, high workload, and limited appointment access were reported. Remote consulting was seen as challenging for building relationships but helpful for follow-up encounters. Few personal or training factors influenced views on relational continuity.

Conclusion Despite significant barriers, GP registrars highlighted the importance of relational continuity for patient care and clinician satisfaction. Further research is needed to explore how training models impact continuity, and how training and remote consulting can support the experience of relational continuity in practice.

How this fits in

Relational continuity of care is valued for improving patient outcomes and clinician satisfaction, but little is known about how GP registrars experience it. Previous research has mainly focused on fully qualified GPs, with limited attention to registrars’ perspectives. This study finds that GP registrars highly value relational continuity but face significant barriers such as rotational training and high workloads. This research highlights the need for training models that support relational continuity of care and a greater need to understand the impact of remote consulting.

Introduction

Relational continuity of care is often regarded as a hallmark of general practice and, for many clinicians and patients, is intertwined with ‘relationship-based care’.1 Relational continuity refers to the development of a therapeutic relationship with patients over time. There are other forms of continuity; for example, managerial continuity, which refers to coordination of the patient care journey and informational continuity, which involves staff having access to accurate up-to-date patient records.2 Evidence has demonstrated that relational continuity of care is valued in general practice internationally.3,4

Literature exploring relational continuity has demonstrated reduced hospitalisation and mortality,5–7 safer prescribing,8 and improved job satisfaction.9 Patients also value relational continuity, increasing trust and improving clinical care.10,11 The UK Government has highlighted the importance of relational continuity,12 with suggestions at a policy level that general practice should include and support this continuity.2,13

However, little research has explored how registrars, as future independent clinicians, experience relational continuity. GP registrars are an increasingly heterogeneous group from a diverse range of personal and clinical backgrounds with varied experiences and expectations of general practice.14 While relational continuity of care is mentioned throughout the UK training curriculum documents, including specific reference to ‘maintain a continuing relationship with patients, carers and families’,15 experience of continuity within training is modest, with lower patient satisfaction with continuity at training practices.16,17 This may be related to rotational training, patient preference to see a ‘usual’ GP, and/or a reconceptualisation of continuity to being multidisciplinary team-based as opposed to between individual clinician and patient.16,18

Today’s registrars are working in an environment with more use of remote consultation than ever, with >30% of patient contacts occurring remotely in 2024 in England.19 Since 2020, they have undertaken final examinations that have included telephone and video consulting with patients.20,21 They are affected by the lack of high-quality educational literature on how to train in digital and remote consulting,22,23 and a lack of understanding of the impact of remote consulting on relational continuity.24

Given the sparsity of literature examining GP registrars’ views on relational continuity, this work aimed to explore those views and what personal, training, and practice factors, including the use of remote consulting, may influence them.

Method

Survey development

The survey was developed by the research team, which included two GPs and a researcher experienced in survey methodology (see Supplementary Appendix S1).

The survey collected personal characteristics of participants, including age, sex and ethnicity, and educational backgrounds, such as stage of training, Membership of Royal College of General Practitioners (MRCGP) examinations undertaken, and previous specialty training. These questions were used to identify potential factors that could influence views towards relational continuity of care. We defined relational continuity in the survey at the beginning of the questions about continuity as ‘the ongoing therapeutic relationship between a patient and one or more providers’.

Experiences and views of remote or digital consulting were explored and these questions drew on previous surveys by the research team.25,26

Views and experiences of continuity were explored through a mixture of short-answer, multiple-choice, and Likert-scale questions.

The survey was piloted and collaboratively modified with four GPs who had recently completed training, each drawing on their recent experience as GP registrars. This ensured that the pilot group would not overlap with potential participants but would include input from those with recent experience as registrars.

Recruitment

GP registrars working in the West Midlands were eligible for inclusion in this survey. When the survey was developed, approximately 1700 GP registrars were based in the West Midlands (Table 1). Recruitment materials and the study information sheet stated that the survey was for registrars in the West Midlands.

View this table:
Table 1. GP training in the UK, with reference to the West Midlands

The survey was hosted online by Qualtrics between July and November 2024. It was disseminated by email and via social media by the Workforce, Training and Education team (NHS England Midlands team) and the Royal College of General Practitioners Midland Faculty. There was also distribution through local vocational training schemes across the West Midlands where training programme directors supported advertisement at scheduled teaching sessions.

Data analysis

Statistical data were analysed in SPSS (version 29). The first stage was a descriptive analysis of personal and training characteristics. The second stage used a logistic regression model that explored the link between personal and training characteristics with views regarding continuity and the use of remote consulting. Free-text answers were analysed using inductive content analysis, which involved compiling the free-text answers into a dataset, reading them, and organising them into themes and reporting themes alongside relevant examples from the data.27

Results

In total, 246 survey responses were received, giving a response rate of approximately 14.5%. Owing to the fluctuating nature of training, with registrars entering and leaving training throughout the year, it was not possible to calculate an exact response rate.

Responders’ characteristics are represented in Table 2. Most were female, participants were a range of ages, and there was ethnic diversity in the sample. When compared with available data on the full population of registrars, which was obtained directly from NHS England via a freedom of information request, the responders were aligned with the wider population of registrars in relation to sex (61.8% female in sample, 60.4% in wider population) and place of medical education (61.0% international medical graduates [IMGs] in sample, 62.4% in wider population). The overall number of registrars in ethnic minority groups was 75.6% in the sample and 79.1% in the wider population. See Supplementary Table S1 for all available comparator information.

View this table:
Table 2. Personal and training characteristics

More than half of the responders identified caring responsibilities. A small proportion lived with a disability or long-term health condition (Table 2).

There were responses from registrars across all training years. Most had not passed any MRCGP examinations, possibly reflecting the proportion of ST1 responders (Table 2). Nearly one-quarter of responders had trained in another specialty before GP training (see Supplementary Table S2).

Benefits of relational continuity of care

Registrars responded positively to the benefits to their clinical practice from relational continuity (Table 3), with 74.8% (n = 184) responding that it was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important for them to build a relationship with a patient. Around three-quarters also felt that relational continuity was ’very’ or ‘extremely’ important for benefitting the health of their patients (74.4%, n = 183) and for efficiency (72.8%, n = 179). Job satisfaction and finding out clinical outcomes were more moderately regarded as important. Free-text comments can be found in Supplementary Table S3.

View this table:
Table 3. What are the benefits of relational continuity for care (being part of) your clinical practice?

Those who had not undertaken specialty training before embarking on GP training were more likely to report that relational continuity was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important for job satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 6.39, P = 0.019) (see Supplementary Table S4). IMG and European Economic Area (EEA) graduates (non-UK graduates combined) were less likely to report that benefits of relational continuity were ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important for benefitting the health of patients (OR 0.077, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.62, P = 0.016) or for efficiency in consulting (OR 0.07, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.39, P = 0.002) (see Supplementary Tables S5 and S6). There were no other statistically significant relationships identified between any further personal or training characteristics and the benefits of relational continuity. See Supplementary Appendix S1 for more details.

The importance of relational continuity of care

Registrars were asked about the importance of relational continuity for varying patient and staff groups (see Supplementary Table S7). While 169 participants selected that it was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important for all patients, this did not extend to some patient groups and presentations. Relational continuity was felt to be most important for patients with long-term conditions (78.9%, n = 194), mental health conditions (76.8%, n = 189), intellectual disability (71.5%, n = 176), or of older age (78.0%, n = 192). The two patient groups where relational continuity was felt least important were those with acute presentations (for example, a viral respiratory tract infection) or those aged <18 years (see Supplementary Tables S8 and S9).

Relational continuity was felt to be particularly important for GPs and GP registrars to deliver, with 71.1% (n = 175) and 63.4% (n = 156) selecting ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ important (see Supplementary Table S10). No responders selected ‘not important’ for either group. There were more mixed views for other clinical team members, particularly for advanced care practitioners (ACPs), medical associate professions (MAPs; for example, physician associates) and healthcare assistants (HCAs); MAPs and HCAs were more frequently rated as ‘slightly’ or ‘not at all’ important (16.3%, n = 40 and 19.1%, n = 47, respectively).

Barriers to relational continuity of care

Around half of the registrars responded that they ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ were delivering relational continuity in their practice (54.0%, n = 133), with 17.0% (n = 42) responding that they were ‘definitely not’ or ‘probably not’ delivering it (data not shown).

In total, 215 registrars identified ≥2 barriers to delivering relational continuity (Table 4). Rotational training was the biggest barrier (46.7%, n = 115). Ninety-one responders (37.0%) selected ‘overwhelming workload’ as a barrier, with around one-quarter (23.6%, n = 58) identifying training requirements such as portfolio completion or revision as a barrier. Further barriers included access to appointments for patients and access to appointments that registrars could book for their patients.

View this table:
Table 4. Barriers to relational continuity of care

’Other’ barriers included a focus on urgent access (at local and policy level), with a lack of pre-bookable appointments, the use of ACPs or MAPs for acute presentations, and 10-minute appointments. Further concerns about workload, particularly administrative burden, were detailed.

The impact of digital and remote consulting

Most registrars were currently undertaking face-to-face consultations with patients (74.4%, n = 183); however, many had experience with telephone (75.6%, n = 186) and online (35.0%, n = 86) consulting. Very few registrars had undertaken video consultations (13.0%, n = 32), and a small proportion had only ever undertaken face-to-face consulting (4.9%, n = 12) (see Supplementary Tables S11 and S12).

Overall, 43.1% (n = 106) felt that it was more difficult to build relationships with patients via a remote consultation (‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ disagree), but consulting was felt to be easier in the context of a pre-existing relationship (Table 5). There were mixed views about whether remote consulting made relational continuity easier, although nearly half of the responders stated that they would be more likely to follow a patient up if they could do so remotely (44.7%, n = 110). There were no significant relationships between personal or training characteristics and views on continuity in remote consulting (see Supplementary Table S13). There was also no significant relationship between views and use of consulting modalities.

View this table:
Table 5. Responses to the question, ‘In your experience, how does remote consulting impact on relational continuity of care in general practice?’

Understanding relational continuity of care

In total, 189 registrars described what relational continuity of care meant for them in free-text answers (see Supplementary Table S14). The key themes are summarised in Table 6. The majority conceptualised relational continuity of care as building individual longitudinal relationships with patients, to develop rapport and trust, and to deliver personalised care inclusive of biopsychosocial factors. Forty-two responders considered continuity as aligning with ‘follow-up’ of clinical decisions, typically associated with episodes of care or symptoms. Seven considered continuity as based within a team of clinicians.

View this table:
Table 6. GP registrars’ conceptualisation of relational continuity of care

Discussion

Summary

GP registrars valued relational continuity as a core aspect of general practice, recognising its benefits for patients and clinicians, while also noting barriers to its implementation. The majority believed it improved patient health through better clinical outcomes, trust, and communication, particularly for older patients, those with mental health issues, and those with long-term conditions.

Relational continuity was viewed as central to the profession, with one responder stating it was ‘the whole point of general practice’. It enhanced job satisfaction and consulting efficiency. These insights suggest continuity is crucial for attracting individuals to general practice.

Registrars identified considerable barriers to relational continuity, including overwhelming workloads owing to urgent access demands and appointment shortages. The biggest barrier was rotational training; other training barriers included the demands of portfolios or exams.

Strengths and limitations

This novel study showed that GP registrars value relational continuity, highlighting why resident doctors are attracted to general practice training. However, we acknowledge that despite providing a definition of relational continuity of care in the survey, responders may have interpreted continuity differently or may have their own understanding of relational continuity of care.

This study involved newly qualified GPs in the development process. HL, an academic GP, completed her training just before this study, bringing recent experience. Early development included newly qualified GPs, enhancing the validity of the survey to reflect contemporary training experiences and barriers to relational continuity and remote consulting.

The response rate to this survey was approximately 14.5%. The survey was promoted through email, social media, and local training schemes, yet the responders represented only a small fraction of eligible registrars. It was not possible to validate the number of eligible registrars who were aware of the survey, and hence the response rate may have been larger than that estimated. In addition, the survey opened in late summer 2024 after delays, coinciding with potential registrar leave or rotational changes, along with registrars possibly facing survey fatigue owing to frequent feedback requests. Conducting this type of survey earlier in the year may better accommodate training schedules and have resulted in a greater level of response.

Despite a low response rate, the responders reflected the demographics of the GP registrar population in the West Midlands in relation to sex, ethnicity, and place of medical education. There were also responses from across all training year groups. This strengthens the results and their generalisability across the wider training cohort. We acknowledge the possibility that registrars outside of the West Midlands may have taken part, and that we cannot validate the identity of responders as GP registrars and this is a limitation.

Comparison with existing literature

Much of the literature on relational continuity of care in general practice has focused on the views of qualified GPs, often neglecting registrars’ experiences. In an existing study that included registrars, relational continuity was valued and linked to the purpose of being a GP.3 This mirrors broader work highlighting holistic care and one-on-one relationships as motivations for entering general practice.28 However, concerns exist that registrars lack opportunities for ongoing responsibility for patients, limiting their exposure to relational continuity.16,29 A research study in Australia highlighted that registrars had limited exposure to continuity for older patients with long-term conditions.30 Further consideration of how to integrate relational and longitudinal continuity within training programmes may enhance not only understanding but also reinforce what may have been a key motivator for becoming a GP, thus improving job satisfaction.

Existing evidence acknowledges that workload pressures hinder the ability to deliver relational continuity,31,32 yet no studies, to our knowledge, have assessed how training demands further disrupt it. Requirements such as e-portfolio completion contribute to heightened stress and have been found to detract from essential learning opportunities.33–35 GP registrars report significant burnout.36 This study’s findings suggest that training programme demands negatively affect engagement with relational continuity, indicating a need to consider how training is delivered to support registrars in developing the skills to deliver and engage with continuity.

The registrars within this survey felt that building a relationship was harder via remote modalities, a concern similarly raised by patients and in the wider literature on delivering personalised care.37,38 However, a systematic review highlighted that remote consulting could facilitate the development of a relationship with prompt communication and enhanced trust;39 this is similarly reflected within the survey results, with registrars indicating they might be more likely to follow a patient up if able to do so remotely.

Implications for research and practice

This work highlights the need to consider how best to support GP registrars to engage with relational continuity throughout training, particularly given the importance placed on it. While the time spent in general practice itself during training has increased from 18 months to up to 2 years, short rotations or integrated training posts may impact experiences of relational continuity. This work suggests that enhancing experiences of relational continuity is likely to be important; suggestions may include longitudinal placements or further extending training from 3 years to 5 years. Within training, the requirement to complete a portfolio could be revisited to understand how it might better support relational continuity of care.

Many of the responders received their medical training outside of the UK. These participants were less likely to report a benefit for patients of relational continuity of care. This differential could be considered when delivering training or designing future research. This work also highlights the need to further understand the impact of remote and digital consulting on relational continuity of care.

The continued expansion of digital and remote services within primary care means that future research might collect information about practice set-up in relation to delivery of consultations and prioritisation of continuity.

In conclusion, registrars emphasised the significance of relational continuity. Although barriers such as training demands and workload were reported, along with mixed opinions on the role of digital consulting, the advantages for staff and patients were acknowledged. Concerns about the existence of relational continuity in modern practice have emerged. Nevertheless, based on registrars’ perspectives in this survey, it remains a fundamental aspect of primary care.

Notes

Funding

Helen Leach is undertaking a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)-funded In-Practice Fellowship. No funding was granted for this research study. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Ethical approval

This study was given favourable ethical approval (reference: 139/23-24) from the University of Warwick Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Committee.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  • Received January 2, 2025.
  • Revision received March 26, 2025.
  • Accepted April 7, 2025.

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP)
    (2022) Fit for the future: relationship-based care. accessed. https://www.rcgp.org.uk/getmedia/67342938-21f9-4045-bc13-0282e7f60ad9/fit-future-relationship-based-care-june-2022.pdf. 22 Aug 2025.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Fraser C,
    2. Clarke G
    (2023) Measuring continuity of care in general practice. accessed. .. https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/briefings/measuring-continuity-of-care-in-general-practice. 22 Aug 2025.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Stokes T,
    2. Tarrant C,
    3. Mainous AG 3rd.,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Continuity of care: is the personal doctor still important? A survey of general practitioners and family physicians in England and Wales, the United States, and the Netherlands. Ann Fam Med 3 (4):353–359, doi:10.1370/afm.351, pmid:16046569.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Laux G,
    2. Wensing M,
    3. Altiner A,
    4. Leutgeb R
    (2025) Continuity of care in a pandemic: an observational study in GP-centred healthcare in Germany. BMJ Open Qual 14 (1), doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002944, pmid:40032595. e002944.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sandvik H,
    2. Hetlevik Ø,
    3. Blinkenberg J,
    4. Hunskaar S
    (2022) Continuity in general practice as predictor of mortality, acute hospitalisation, and use of out-of-hours care: a registry-based observational study in Norway. Br J Gen Pract 72 (715):e84–e90, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0340, pmid:34607797.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.
    1. Barker I,
    2. Steventon A,
    3. Deeny SR
    (2017) Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ 356 doi:10.1136/bmj.j84, pmid:28148478. j84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Pereira Gray DJ,
    2. Sidaway-Lee K,
    3. White E,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Continuity of care with doctors—a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 8 (6), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021161, pmid:29959146. e021161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Delgado J,
    2. Evans PH,
    3. Gray DP,
    4. et al.
    (2022) Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients. Br J Gen Pract 72 (715):e91–e98, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0413, pmid:35074796.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ridd M,
    2. Shaw A,
    3. Salisbury C
    (2006) Two sides of the coin’—the value of personal continuity to GPs: a qualitative interview study. Fam Pract 23 (4):461–468, doi:10.1093/fampra/cml010, pmid:16595543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cheraghi-Sohi S,
    2. Hole AR,
    3. Mead N,
    4. et al.
    (2008) What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med 6 (2):107–115, doi:10.1370/afm.816, pmid:18332402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Murphy M,
    2. Salisbury C
    (2020) Relational continuity and patients’ perception of GP trust and respect: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 70 (698):e676–e683, doi:10.3399/bjgp20X712349, pmid:32784221.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Health and Social Care Committee
    (2022) The future of general practice. accessed. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmhealth/113/report.html. 22 Aug 2025.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Iacobucci G
    (2023) Continuity of care should be “essential requirement” in GP contract, says watchdog. BMJ 383 2839, doi:10.1136/bmj.p2839.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. General Medical Council
    (2022) The state of medical education and practice in the UK: the workforce report. accessed. https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/workforce-report-2022---full-report_pdf-94540077.pdf. 22 Aug 2025.
  15. 15.↵
    1. RCGP
    (2025) How the curriculum is structured – capabilities in practice. accessed. https://www.rcgp.org.uk/mrcgp-exams/gp-curriculum/how-the-curriculum-is-structured. 21 Aug 2025.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Pearlman J,
    2. Morgan S,
    3. van Driel M,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Continuity of care in general practice vocational training: prevalence, associations and implications for training. Educ Prim Care 27 (1):27–36, doi:10.1080/14739879.2015.1101871, pmid:26862796.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Weston C,
    2. Ahluwalia S,
    3. Bassett P,
    4. et al.
    (2017) GP training practices in England: a description of their unique features based on national data. Educ Prim Care 28 (6):313–318, doi:10.1080/14739879.2017.1345649, pmid:28709391.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Maru D,
    2. Loftus L,
    3. Edwin C,
    4. et al.
    (2022) Final report: a summary of our findings and implications for the future of general practice in the UK. accessed. https://storage.googleapis.com/production-bluehost-v1-0-3/653/1282653/zCep4t7w/322f2f70c60041358bc4995e94e27d71. 22 Aug 2025.
  19. 19.↵
    1. NHS GP Patient Survey
    (2025) Survey results and materials. accessed. https://www.gp-patient.co.uk/surveysandreports. 22 Aug 2025.
  20. 20.↵
    1. RCGP
    (2025) MRCGP: Simulated Consultation Assessment (SCA). accessed. https://www.rcgp.org.uk/mrcgp-exams/simulated-consultation-assessment. 22 Aug 2025.
  21. 21.↵
    1. British Medical Journal
    (2022) Guide To MRCGP: Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA). accessed. https://www.rcgp.org.uk/mrcgp-exams/recorded-consultation-assessment. 17 Sep 2025.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Parsons J,
    2. Salman B,
    3. Leach H,
    4. et al.
    (2023) Training primary care staff in delivering the primary care consultation remotely: a systematic review. BJGP Open 7 (4), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0110, pmid:37562822. BJGPO.2023.0110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Payne RE,
    3. Hemmings N,
    4. et al.
    (2024) Remote services in general practice: who needs to be trained in what, when and how. Br J Gen Pract 74 (738):e17–e26, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2023.0251.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ladds E,
    2. Khan M,
    3. Moore L,
    4. et al.
    (2023) The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 73 (730):e374–e383, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2022.0398, pmid:37105731.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Brant H,
    2. Atherton H,
    3. Ziebland S,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 66 (648):e460–e466, doi:10.3399/bjgp16X685597, pmid:27215571.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Winder R,
    2. Campbell JL,
    3. Akter N,
    4. et al.
    (2024) Exploring how patients are supported to use online services in primary care in England through “digital facilitation”: survey study. J Med Internet Res 26 doi:10.2196/56528, pmid:39110960. e56528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Elo S,
    2. Kyngäs H
    (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62 (1):107–115, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x, pmid:18352969.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Watson J,
    2. Humphrey A,
    3. Peters-Klimm F,
    4. Hamilton W
    (2011) Motivation and satisfaction in GP training: a UK cross-sectional survey. Br J Gen Pract 61 (591):e645–e649, doi:10.3399/bjgp11X601352, pmid:22152846.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Tavabie A,
    2. Stanwick S,
    3. Belling R,
    4. Lister G
    (2010) Closing the gap between expectations and practice in continuity of care: can we still teach continuity of care? Educ Prim Care 21 (2):83–88, doi:10.1080/14739879.2010.11493886, pmid:20359386.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Bentley M,
    2. Kerr R,
    3. Scott F,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Exploring opportunities for general practice registrars to manage older patients with chronic disease: a qualitative study. Aust J Gen Pract 48 (7):451–456, doi:10.31128/AJGP-09-18-4694, pmid:31256510.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Groot LJ,
    2. Janssen E,
    3. Westerman MJ,
    4. et al.
    (2025) Improving personal continuity in general practice: a focus group study. Br J Gen Pract 75 (750):e12–e19, doi:10.3399/BJGP.2025.0099, pmid:39586633.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Kajaria-Montag H,
    2. Freeman M
    (2020) Explaining the erosion of relational care continuity: an empirical analysis of primary care in England. INSEAD Working Paper No. 2020/47/TOM. accessed. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3699385. 22 Aug 2025.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Emery LJ,
    2. Jackson B,
    3. Mitchell C
    (2024) “I feel many of my reflections are forced”: international medical graduates’ perspectives on reflection in UK general practice training: a mixed methods qualitative study. BJGP Open 8 (4), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0210, pmid:38806213. BJGPO.2023.0210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    1. Rouse J,
    2. Green C
    (2018) What factors influence general practice specialist trainees’ engagement with their e-portfolio? MedEdPublish (2016) 7 doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000173.1, pmid:38074559. 173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Siriwardena AN,
    2. Phung VH,
    3. Emerson K,
    4. Anstey T
    (2024) Perceptions and experiences of trainers and trainees of UK workplace-based assessment for general practice licensing: a mixed methods survey. Educ Prim Care 35 (5):147–159, doi:10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525, pmid:39115268.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. British Medical Association
    (2024) New BMA survey highlights worrying trends of burnout and future concerns from GP registrars. accessed. .. https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/new-bma-survey-highlights-worrying-trends-of-burnout-and-future-concerns-from-gp-registrars. 22 Aug 2025.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Mann C,
    2. Turner A,
    3. Salisbury C
    (2021) The impact of remote consultations on personalised care: evidence briefing. accessed. https://arc-w.nihr.ac.uk/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Remote-consultation-briefing-website-final.pdf. 22 Aug 2025.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Leach H,
    2. Eccles A,
    3. Chew-Graham CA,
    4. Atherton H
    (2025) Patient experiences of remote consulting with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and fibromyalgia: a qualitative study. BJGP Open 9 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0079, pmid:39191480. BJGPO.2024.0079.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Mold F,
    2. Hendy J,
    3. Lai Y-L,
    4. de Lusignan S
    (2019) Electronic consultation in primary care between providers and patients: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform 7 (4), doi:10.2196/13042, pmid:31793888. e13042.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 9, Issue 3
October 2025
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
‘It gives a sense of purpose’: a survey exploring GP registrars’ views on relational continuity of care
Helen Leach, Helen Atherton, Jeremy Dale
BJGP Open 2025; 9 (3): BJGPO.2025.0001. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0001
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo Bluesky logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals
 
 

British Journal of General Practice