Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours?

• Main Authors: Flum, Elisabeth, Maagaard, Roar, Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek, Scarborough, Nigel, Scherpbier, Nynke, Ledig, Thomas, Roos, Marco, Steinhäuser, Jost
• Format: Article
• Language: deu
• Published: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2015-05-01
• Series: GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung
• Subjects: Primary health car; training; curriculum; competency-based education; assessment
• Online Access: http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/zma/2015-32/zma000963.shtml

Background: Although demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries.Methods: A semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved.Results: FM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries.Conclusions: Longitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.