Supervision Preparedness Among GP Registrars: A Survey Study
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background Clinical supervision (CS) plays a vital role in healthcare education and patient safety. As general practice embraces a multidisciplinary workforce, GP registrars are increasingly expected to supervise Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) and medical students from day one after qualifying. However, the extent of their preparedness for such roles remains unclear. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between August 2024 and January 2025 among UK GP registrars. The survey included quantitative and qualitative items assessing supervision experience, confidence, and perceptions of training. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyse the data. Results A total of 52 registrars responded. The majority (n= 50 [96%]) reported no formal training on how to effectively supervise. Only 15% were supervising medical students, and n=2 (4%) were supervising AHPs. Key barriers to effective supervision included lack of training, time constraints, and uncertainty about roles. Registrars expressed strong interest in structured training to build confidence in supervision. Conclusions GP registrars report limited training and confidence in clinical supervision, despite growing expectations to supervise a diverse primary care team. Structured educational interventions as part of continuing professional development are needed to support supervision readiness and ensure safe, effective practice in a multidisciplinary environment.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Supervision Preparedness Among GP Registrars: A Survey Study
- Date Crossref
- 08/10/2025
- Éditeur
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.