Australian general practice trainees' exposure to ophthalmic problems and implications for training: a cross-sectional analysis.

INTRODUCTION Eye conditions are common presentations in Australian general practice, with the potential for serious sequelae. Pre-vocational ophthalmology training for General Practitioner (GP) trainees is limited. AIM To describe the rate, nature and associations of ophthalmic problems managed by Australian GP trainees, and derive implications for education and training. METHODS Cross-sectional analysis from an ongoing cohort study of GP trainees' clinical consultations. Trainees recorded demographic, clinical and educational details of consecutive patient consultations. Descriptive analyses report trainee, patient and practice demographics. Proportions of all problems managed in these consultations that were ophthalmology-related were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Associations were tested using simple logistic regression within the generalised estimating equations (GEE) framework. RESULTS In total, 884 trainees returned data on 184,476 individual problems or diagnoses from 118,541 encounters. There were 2649 ophthalmology-related problems, equating to 1.4% (95% CI: 1.38-1.49) of all problems managed. The most common eye presentations were conjunctivitis (32.5% of total problems), eyelid problems (14.9%), foreign body (5.3%) and dry eye (4.7%). Statistically significant associations were male trainee; male patient and patient aged 14 years or under; the problem being new and the patient being new to both trainee and practice; urban and of higher socioeconomic status practice location; the practice nurse not being involved; planned follow up not arranged; referral made; in-consultation information sought; and learning goals generated. DISCUSSION Trainees have comparable ophthalmology exposure to established GPs. However, associations with referral and information-seeking suggest GP trainees find ophthalmic problems challenging, reinforcing the critical importance of appropriate training.

Pathology test-ordering behaviour of Australian general practice trainees: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In the context of increasing over-testing and the implications for patient safety, to establish the prevalence and nature of pathology test-ordering of GP trainees, and to describe the associations of this test-ordering. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study. SETTING: Five of Australia's 17 general practice regional training providers, encompassing urban-to-very remote practices. PARTICIPANTS: GP trainees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of pathology tests ordered per problem/diagnosis managed. RESULTS: A total of 856 individual trainees (response rate 95.2%) contributed data from 1832 trainee-terms, 108 759 encounters and 169 304 problems. Pathology test-ordering prevalence was 79.3 tests (95% CI: 78.8-79.8) per 100 encounters, 50.9 (95% CI: 50.6-51.3) per 100 problems, and at least 1 test was requested in 22.4% of consultations. Most commonly ordered was full blood count (6.1 per 100 problems). The commonest problem prompting test-ordering was 'check-up' (18.6%). Test-ordering was significantly associated, on multivariable analysis, with the trainee having worked at the practice previously; the patient being adult, male and new to both trainee and practice; the practice being urban; the problem/diagnosis being new; imaging being ordered; referral being made and follow-up being arranged. Trainees were significantly less likely to order tests for problems/diagnoses for which they had sought in-consultation information or advice. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the established GPs, trainees order more pathology tests per consultation and per problem managed, and in a higher proportion of consultations. Our findings will inform educational policy to enhance quality and safety in general practice training.

Travel Medicine Encounters of Australian General Practice Trainees-A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Travel medicine is a common and challenging area of clinical practice and practitioners need up-to-date knowledge and experience in a range of areas. Australian general practitioners (GPs) play a significant role in the delivery of travel medicine advice. We aimed to describe the rate and nature of travel medicine consultations, including both the clinical and educational aspects of the consultations. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis from an ongoing cohort study of GP trainees' clinical consultations was performed. Trainees contemporaneously recorded demographic, clinical, and educational details of consecutive patient consultations. Proportions of all problems/diagnoses managed in these consultations that were coded "travel-related" and "travel advice" were both calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Associations of a problem/diagnosis being "travel-related" or "travel advice" were tested using simple logistic regression within the generalized estimating equations (GEE) framework. RESULTS: A total of 856 trainees contributed data on 169,307 problems from 108,759 consultations (2010-2014). Travel-related and travel advice problems were managed at a rate of 1.1 and 0.5 problems per 100 encounters, respectively. Significant positive associations of travel-related problems were younger trainee and patient age; new patient to the trainee and practice; privately billing, larger, urban, and higher socioeconomic status practices; and involvement of the practice nurse. Trainees sought in-consultation information and generated learning goals in 34.7 and 20.8% of travel advice problems, respectively, significantly more than in non-travel advice problems. Significant positive associations of travel advice problems were seeking in-consultation information, generation of learning goals, longer consultation duration, and more problems managed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of focused training in travel medicine for GP trainees and adequate exposure to patients in the practice setting. In addition, our findings have implications more broadly for the delivery of travel medicine in general practice.