Highlighting efficiency and redundancy in the Royal Australian College of General Practice standards for accreditation.

Objectives Accreditation to standards developed by the Royal Australian College of General Practice provides assurance to the community of the quality and safety of general practices in Australia. The objective of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of the 5th edition standards. Minimal empirically driven evaluation of the standards has been conducted since their publication in 2020. Methods Data encompass consecutive Australian general practice accreditation assessments between December 2020 and July 2022 recorded from a single accrediting agency. Met and not met compliance (binary) scores for 124 indicators evaluated at the site visit were recorded. A subset of indicators derived from a selection of existing and consistently non-conformant indicators within each criterion was generated. Concordance between the indicator subset and the criterion was assessed to determine the predictive ability of the indicator subset in distinguishing practices who are conformant to the entire criterion. Results A total of 757 general practices were included in the analysis. On average, 113.69 (s.d. = 8.16) of 124 indicators were evaluated as conformant at the site visit. In total, 52 (42%) indicators were required to obtain a true positive conformity rate above 95% for all criterions of the standards. For criterion 1 (General Practice 1) conformity to the entire criterion (nine indicators; >95% true positive rate) could be obtained by including 2/9 indicators (C1-1a and C1-2a). Conclusion Our results identified that indicator non-conformity was driven by a small proportion of indicators and identifying a subset of these consistently non-conformant indicators predicted a true positive rate above 95% at the criterion level.

The impact of self-assessment and surveyor assessment on site visit performance under the National General Practice Accreditation scheme.

Objective There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of general practice accreditation processes. Two areas that have been highlighted as areas of potential inconsistency are the self-assessment and surveyor assessment of indicators. Methods The data encompass 757 accreditation visits made between December 2020 and July 2022. A mixed-effect multilevel logistic regression model determined the association between attempt of the self-assessment and indicator conformity from the surveyor assessment. Furthermore, we present a contrast of the rate of indicator conformity between surveyors as an approximation of the inter-assessor consistency from the site visit. Results Two hundred and seventy-seven (37%) practices did not attempt or accurately report conformity to any indicators at the self-assessment. Association between attempting the self-assessment and the rate of indicator non-conformity at the site visit failed to reach statistical significance (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 1.14-0.72], P = 0.28). A small number of surveyors (N = 9/34) demonstrated statistically significant differences in the rate of indicator conformity compared to the mean of all surveyors. Conclusions Attempt of the self-assessment did not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall. Appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified.

General practice accreditation - does time spent on-site matter?

Background Accreditation to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Standards for general practices was developed with the intent of giving assurance to the public as to the safety and quality of general practice. The standards have undergone several iterative changes but have had little empirical validation since the original entry standards. Objective To compare the rate of indicator non-conformity between a full-day survey visit conducted under the 5th edition standards against the half-day visit conducted under the 4th edition standards. Results More non-conformities were identified with the 5th edition standards (full-day visit) with a median 86% met (IQR: 14; n = 926) compared with the 4th edition standards (half-day visit) with a median 95% met (IQR: 7; n = 1687; P < 0.0001; bootstrapped t -test). Discussion The difference in conformity between editions does not appear to relate to different requirements in the two standards editions. The key variable affecting the different outcomes between the edition assessments was time spent on-site by surveyors during a survey visit.

Supervision--growing and building a sustainable general practice supervisor system.

This article explores various models and ideas for future sustainable general practice vocational training supervision in Australia. The general practitioner supervisor in the clinical practice setting is currently central to training the future general practice workforce. Finding ways to recruit, retain and motivate both new and experienced GP teachers is discussed, as is the creation of career paths for such teachers. Some of the newer methods of practice-based teaching are considered for further development, including vertically integrated teaching, e-learning, wave consulting and teaching on the run, teaching teams and remote teaching. Approaches to supporting and resourcing teaching and the required infrastructure are also considered. Further research into sustaining the practice-based general practice supervision model will be required.

The influence of geographical location on the complexity of rural general practice activities.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the complexity of activities undertaken in general practice in relation to degree of rurality of the practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: National mail questionnaire survey across non-metropolitan Australia in July 2002. PARTICIPANTS: 1498 respondents out of 4406 GPs providing at least 375 Medicare-rebatable consultations in rural and remote locations during January-March 2002 (response rate, 35%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five sentinel measures of practice complexity. RESULTS: In general, the proportion of GPs providing complex services increases with increasing rurality or remoteness. Isolated rural and remote GPs manage myocardial infarctions to a higher level than GPs in larger rural and regional centres, are more likely to administer cytotoxic drugs, perform forensic examinations, stabilise injured patients pending retrieval, and coordinate discharge planning more often. CONCLUSIONS: The more rural or remote the area, the more likely a GP is to be regularly engaged in complex care. These findings have implications for the workload, responsibility, vocational satisfaction, need for professional education and support, and costs and remuneration of practice.

Workforce retention in rural and remote Australia: determining the factors that influence length of practice.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain which factors are most significant in a general practitioner's decision to stay in rural practice and whether these retention factors vary in importance according to the geographical location of the practice and GP characteristics. DESIGN: National questionnaire survey. The method of paired comparisons was used to describe the relative importance of the retention items. SETTING: Non-metropolitan Australia, September 2001. PARTICIPANTS: A stratified sample of all rural GPs practising during April-June 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A rank ordering of factors influencing how long GPs stay in rural practice, and an index of their relative perceived importance. RESULTS: Professional considerations -- overwhelmingly, on-call arrangements -- are the most important factors determining GP retention in rural and remote areas. Rural doctors consistently ranked on-call arrangements, professional support and variety of rural practice as the top three issues, followed by local availability of services and geographical attractiveness. Proximity to a city or large regional centre was the least important factor. Retention factors varied according to geographical location and GPs' age, sex, family status, length of time in the practice, and hospital duties. CONCLUSIONS: A broad, integrated rural retention strategy is required to address on-call arrangements, provide professional support and ensure adequate time off for continuing medical education and recreation.