Understanding the learning needs of London-based GP trainees in conducting telephone consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Telehealth care and telephone consultations are increasingly used in primary care for daily triage, patient reviews, and providing clinical information; however little is known about the perceptions of GP trainees. Aim To investigate the knowledge and skills of GP trainees in conducting telephone consultations; evaluate their current experiences and learning needs; and identify future training considerations based on feedback received. Method Using a mixed-methods approach, a cross-sectional quantitative survey of North Central and East London (NCEL) GP trainees was initially performed. This was followed-up by qualitative semi-structured interviews, which allowed deeper exploration of themes. Results In total 100 trainees responded to the survey, and eight proceeded with interviews. Trainees were least confident in independently undertaking more complex aspects of telephone consulting, and there was a positive correlation between training received and confidence to work independently. Despite positive and negative experiences, trainees felt that there were gaps in their training and significant differences in overall confidence, supervision and feedback among different training grades and between in-hours and out-of-hours practice. Future considerations included curricular promotion, increased trainer-trainee observations using audio-clinical observation tools or simulated practice, and consideration of formal training. Conclusion This project has shed light on the current learning, feedback, and assessment practices of GP trainees in conducting telephone consultations. Further evaluation will provide a helpful guide to various stakeholders, foresee any challenges and inform a wider debate among postgraduate learners regarding their training for the use of technology in healthcare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".