RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating the UK’s first national prescribing assessment for GPs in training using an online survey
JF BJGP Open
JO BJGP Open
FD Royal College of General Practitioners
SP BJGPO.2023.0044
DO 10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0044
VO 7
IS 4
A1 Knox, Richard
A1 Bell, Brian G
A1 Salema, Ndeshi
A1 Emerson, Kim
A1 Bodgener, Susan
A1 Rial, Jonathan
A1 Gookey, Gill
A1 Swanwick, Glen
A1 Charly, Anna
A1 Avery, Anthony J
YR 2023
UL http://bjgpopen.org/content/7/4/BJGPO.2023.0044.abstract
AB Background GP trainees may not have experienced a systematic and comprehensive education in safe prescribing. Therefore, a self-assessment prescribing review was developed.Aim To determine whether the assessment was feasible, had face validity, and did not disadvantage particular groups of participants.Design & setting An online survey that evaluates the opinions of GPs in training of a prescribing assessment in the UK. All full-time UK trainees who started their final year of GP training in August 2019 undertook the prescribing assessment along with their trainers, after which they completed an online anonymous feedback questionnaire.Method The questionnaire completed by trainees sought their opinions of the assessment, and collected ethnicity and disability data. The trainer questionnaire was similar but did not include any demographic information.Results The questionnaire was completed by 1741 trainees and 1576 trainers. There was no evidence that ethnic group and disability were related to aspects of the review. Most of the trainees (76.4%, n = 1330) and trainers (82.0%, n = 1293) agreed or strongly agreed that the prescribing review was helpful for assessing and learning about the trainee’s prescribing. However, most participants (63.2%, n = 1092) took >4 hours to review their prescriptions. A majority of trainees (90.2%, n = 1571) reported that completing the assessment had resulted in a change in their prescribing practice.Conclusion The majority of trainers and trainees reported that the prescribing assessment was helpful. The study was not able to assess whether there had been an actual change in practice that resulted in an error reduction.