Neil Spike

Background: In Australia, a government insurance scheme (Medicare) pays set rebates for a range of distinct general practitioner (GP) services. GPs may ‘bulk-bill’ and accept the Medicare rebate fee directly, or ‘privately-bill’ by charging the patient a higher fee that is partially reimbursed by Medicare. The billing behaviour of Australian GP registrars (trainees) and their decision to bulk- or privately-bill patients is an evidence gap. This study aimed to establish the prevalence and associations of registrars’ bulk-billing versus private-billing. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the ReCEnT study, 2010–2021. The primary analysis used univariable and multivariable logistic regression, with the outcome factor being whether a consultation was bulk-billed versus privately-billed. The primary analysis excluded practices that universally bulk-bill or universally privately-bill all patients. A secondary analysis included all practices regardless of billing policy to provide an overall perspective of billing across the breadth of GP vocational training. Results: For the primary analysis, 3,086 GP registrars recorded details of 316,141 consultations. Bulk-billing accounted for 61.8%, [95% CI:61.6%, 62.0%] of consultations. Significant positive associations of bulk-billing included: younger and older patient age (compared to patients aged 15–34 years, aOR 5.45; CI: [5.06, 5.87] for patients aged 0–14 years, aOR 2.36; 95% CI: [2.24, 2.49] for patients aged 65–74 years, and aOR 4.48; CI: [4.13, 4.85] for 75 years-and-older). Significant negative associations of bulk-billing included patients new to the practice (aOR 0.39; CI: [0.37, 0.41]) and patients new to the registrar (aOR 0.56; CI: [0.55, 0.58]), compared to existing patients of the registrar and practice; and practices with lesser socio-economic disadvantage (aOR 0.91; CI: [0.89, 0.93] per decile decrease in socioeconomic disadvantage). Bulk-billed consultations were positively associated with arranging patient follow-up (with the registrar aOR 1.06; CI: [1.03, 1.09]; or with another GP in the practice aOR 1.40; CI: [1.33, 1.46]). Conclusions: Registrar billing decisions may, in part, reflect government bulk-billing incentives but our findings suggest other factors may contribute, including the provision of affordable care recognising patient need (children and elderly, and those living in areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage) and continuity of care. Further research is needed to better understand how, and why, registrars make billing decisions.

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of a multi-component educational program aimed at improving general practitioner (GP) trainees’ (registrars') deprescribing in patients 65 years and over. The hypothesis was that an educational program would increase registrars' deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) in older patients, relative to a control group, six months post-education. Design: This was a pragmatic, non-randomised, non-equivalent control group design nested within an ongoing cohort study of registrars' practice (the ReCEnT study). The program consisted of an online module, face-to-face sessions for registrars, webinars for their supervisors, and facilitation of the registrar–supervisor dyad, including case-based discussions of deprescribing in teaching meetings. The program was underpinned by the Behaviour Change Wheel framework and delivered to registrars of a single registrar educational/training organisation (other educational/training organisations served as controls). Primary outcome measures were deprescribing any medicines and deprescribing medicines categorised as PIMs. Secondary outcomes were deprescribing of medications taken for three months or more and dose reduction with a view to deprescribing (cessation). Findings: Data from 779 education-receiving registrars and 438 control registrars were analysed. Intervention group registrars showed no significant increase in deprescribing of any medication compared to controls (interaction aOR 1.00 (95%CI 0.69, 1.46) or of PIMs (aOR 1.29 (95%CI 0.74, 2.24), or significant changes in secondary outcomes. Research implications: Despite no differences in prescribing, in this analysis, six months post-intervention, aspects of the findings suggest extended observation and further evaluation may be indicated. Practical implications: The continuation of education for registrars around deprescribing of PIMs is essential. Further investigation is required to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the behaviour change approach adopted in this study. Originality/value: The multi-component behaviour change theory-based approach is novel for this educational setting, and this is an initial step in evaluating the approach. Limitations: The major limitation is that randomisation in the study design was not practicable.

Background: Remunerated telehealth consultations were introduced in Australia in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Videoconferencing has advantages over telephone-consulting, including improved diagnostic and decision-making accuracy. However, videoconferencing uptake in Australia has been low. This study aimed to establish prevalence and associations of video versus telephone consultations in Australian general practice (GP) registrars’ practice. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of data from 2020 to 2021 (three 6-monthly data-collection rounds) from the Registrars Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study. GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations every 6-month term, for a total of 3 terms. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were performed within the Generalized Estimating Equations framework with the outcome video versus telephone. Results: 102,286 consultations were recorded by 1,168 registrars, with 21.4% of consultations performed via telehealth. Of these, telephone accounted for 96.6% (95% CI: 96.3–96.8%) and videoconferencing for 3.4% (95% CI: 3.2–3.7%). Statistically significant associations of using videoconferencing, compared to telephone, included longer consultation duration (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03 per minute; and mean 14.9 versus 12.8 min), patients aged 0–14 years old (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.03–1.62, compared to age 15–34), patients new to the registrar (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.04–1.35), part-time registrars (OR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.08–3.15), and areas of less socioeconomic disadvantage (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.00–1.62 per decile). Conclusions: Registrars’ telehealth consultations were mostly performed via telephone. Telephone use being associated with socioeconomic disadvantage has health equity implications. Future research should explore barriers to videoconferencing use and strategies to increase its uptake.

Background: Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, remuneration was introduced for Australian general practice telehealth consultations. General practitioner (GP) trainees’ telehealth use is of clinical, educational, and policy importance. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and associations of telehealth versus face-to-face consultations amongst Australian GP registrars (vocational GP trainees). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study, from 2020 to 2021 (three 6-month terms), including registrars in 3 of Australia’s 9 Regional Training Organisations. In ReCEnT, GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations, 6 monthly. The primary analysis used univariate and multivariable logistic regression, with outcome of whether the consultation was conducted via telehealth (phone and videoconference) or face-to-face. Results: 1,168 registrars recorded details of 102,286 consultations, of which 21.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.1%–21.6%) were conducted via telehealth. Statistically significant associations of a telehealth consultation included shorter consultation duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI: 0.93–0.94; and mean 12.9 versus 18.7 min); fewer problems addressed per consultation (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.87–0.97); being less likely to seek assistance from a supervisor (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76–0.96) while being more likely to generate learning goals (OR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02–1.37); and being more likely to arrange a follow-up consultation (OR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02–1.35). Conclusions: That telehealth consultations were shorter, with higher rates of follow-up, has GP workforce/workload implications. That telehealth consultations were less likely to involve in-consultation supervisor support, but more likely to generate learning goals, has educational implications.

To evaluate Australian early-career general practitioners’ perceptions of the utility of their prior vocational training in preparing them for independent specialist practice. We hypothesised that ...

Background: Medical boards and healthcare providers internationally are coming under increasing pressure to attract international medical graduates (IMGs) and overseas trained doctors (OTDs) to cope with predicted general practice (GP) doctor shortages. Various pathways to registration are made available for this purpose. There is very little understanding of the effects of different training pathways to licensing and registration on the ability of IMGs and OTDs, as well as locally trained doctors, to acquire the desirable professional skills deemed necessary for working effectively in the primary care sector. Methods: Feedback from patients was collected at the end of their scheduled consultation with their doctor using a questionnaire consisting of 13 Likert scale items that asked them to rate their experience of the consultation. Feedback was obtained for doctors going through the Royal Australian College of General Practice (RACGP) Practice Experience Program (PEP) and the Australian General Practice Training Program (AGPT), with the former intended primarily for IMGs and OTDs, and the latter for local medical graduates including from New Zealand. Patient feedback was also obtained for patients visiting already Fellowed and experienced GPs for comparative purposes, resulting in data for three groups of doctors (two trainee, one already Fellowed). Rater consistency and agreement measures, analysis of variance, principal component analysis, t-tests and psychometric network analysis were undertaken between and within groups to identify similarities and differences in patient experience and professionalism of doctors. Results: There was a small but significant difference in average patient raw scores given to PEP and AGPT doctors (90.25, 90.97%), with the highest scores for ‘Respect shown’ (92.24, 93.15%) and the lowest for ‘Reassurance’ 89.38, 89.84%). Male patients gave lower scores (89.56%) than female patients (91.23%) for both groups of doctors. In comparison, patients gave experienced GPs an average 91.38% score, with male patients giving a lower average score than female patients (90.62, 91.93%). Two components were found in the patient data (interpersonal communication, caring/empathy) that account for over 80% of the variance. When patient scores were aggregated by doctor, the average PEP and AGPT doctor scores received were 90.27 and 90.99%, in comparison to the average experienced GP score of 91.43%. Network analysis revealed differences in the connectedness of items between these two groups as well as in comparison with experienced GPs, suggesting that PEP doctors’ skills are less cohesively developed in the areas of listening ability, explaining and providing reassurance. Conclusions: The small but statistically significant differences between doctor groups reported in this preliminary study are supplemented by percentile analysis, network analysis and principal component analysis to identify areas for further exploration and study. There is scope for improving the integration of interpersonal communication skills of GPs in Training with their caring and empathy skills, when compared with experienced GPs as a benchmark. Suggestions are made for enhancing professional skills from a patients’ perspective in future training programs.

Multisource feedback is an evidence-based and validated tool used to provide clinicians, including those in training, feedback on their professional and interpersonal skills. Multisource feedback is mandatory for participants in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Practice Experience Program and for some Australian General Practice Training Registrars. Given the recency of the Practice Experience Program, there are currently no benchmarks available for comparison within the program and to other comparable cohorts including doctors in the Australian General Practice Training program. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare colleague feedback within and across General Practice trainee cohorts. Colleague feedback, from multisource feedback of Practice Experience Program participants and Australian General Practice Training Registrars, collected between January 2018 and April 2020, was compared to identify similarities and differences. Analyses entailed descriptive statistics, between and within groups rater consistency and agreement measures, principal component analysis, t-tests, analysis of variance, and psychometric network analysis. Colleague ratings of Practice Experience Program participants (overall average 88.58%) were lower than for Registrars (89.08%), although this difference was not significant. ‘Communication with patients’ was rated significantly lower for Practice Experience Program participants (2.13%) while this group was rated significantly better for their ‘Ability to say no’ (1.78%). Psychometric network analyses showed stronger linkages between items making up the behavioural component (compared to the items of the performance and self-management components, as found by principal component analysis) for Practice Experience Program participants as compared to Registrars. Practice Experience Program participants were stronger in clinical knowledge and skills as well as confidentiality, while Registrars were stronger in communicating with patients, managing their own stress, and in their management and leadership skills. The multisource feedback scores of doctors undertaking the Practice Experience Program suggests that, while all mean values are ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’, there are areas for improvement. The linkages between skills suggests that Practice Experience Program doctors’ skills are somewhat isolated and have yet to fully synthesise. We now have a better understanding of how different groups of General Practitioners in training compare with respect to professional and interpersonal skills. Based on the demonstrated differences, the Practice Experience Program might benefit from the addition of educational activities to target the less developed skills.

Background: Most antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and acute bronchitis is inappropriate. Substantive and sustained reductions in prescribing are needed to reduce antibiotic resistance. Prescribing habits develop early in clinicians’ careers. Hence, general practice (GP) trainees are an important group to target. Objectives: We aimed to establish temporal trends in antibiotic prescribing for URTIs and acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis by Australian GP trainees (registrars). Methods: A longitudinal analysis, 2010–2019, of the Registrars Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) dataset. In ReCEnT, registrars record clinical and educational content of 60 consecutive consultations, on 3 occasions, 6 monthly. Analyses were of new diagnoses of URTI and acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, with the outcome variable a systemic antibiotic being prescribed. The independent variable of interest was year of prescribing (modelled as a continuous variable). Results: 28,372 diagnoses of URTI and 5,289 diagnoses of acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis were recorded by 2,839 registrars. Antibiotic prescribing for URTI decreased from 24% in 2010 to 12% in 2019. Prescribing for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis decreased from 84% to 72%. “Year” was significantly, negatively associated with antibiotic prescribing for both URTI (odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–0.93) and acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis (OR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88–0.96) on multivariable analysis, with estimates representing the mean annual change. Conclusions: GP registrars’ prescribing for URTI and acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis declined over the 10-year period. Prescribing for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, however, remains higher than recommended benchmarks. Continued education and programme-level antibiotic stewardship interventions are required to further reduce registrars’ antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis to appropriate levels.

Background: Climate change is a rapidly progressing threat to global health and well-being. For general practitioners (GPs) currently in training, the effects of climate change on public health will shape their future professional practice We aimed to establish the prevalence and associations of Australian GP registrars’ (trainees’) perceptions of climate change as it relates to public health, education, and workplaces. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of GP registrars of three Australian training organizations. The questionnaire assessed attitudes regarding adverse health effects of climate change (over the next 10–20 years), and agreement with statements on (i) integrating health impacts of climate change into GP vocational training, and (ii) GPs’ role in making general practices environmentally sustainable. Results: Of 879 registrars who participated (response rate 91%), 50.4% (95% CI 46.8%, 54.0%) perceived a large or very large future health effect of climate change on their patients, and 61.8% (95% CI 58.6%, 65.0%) agreed that climate health impacts should be integrated within their education programme. 77.8% (95% CI 74.9%, 80.4%) agreed that GPs should have a leadership role in their practices’ environmental sustainability. Multivariable associations of these attitudes included female gender, training region, and (for the latter two outcomes) perceptions of future impact of climate change on patient health. Conclusions: GP registrars are motivated to receive climate health education and engage in environmentally sustainable practice. This may primarily reflect concern for future practice and patient care.

Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a major determinant of health. In Australia, areas of socioeconomic disadvantage are characterised by complex health needs and inequity in primary health care provision. General Practice (GP) registrars play an important role in addressing workforce needs, including equitable health care provision in areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage. We aimed to characterize GP registrars’ practice location by level of socioeconomic disadvantage, and establish associations (of registrar, practice, patient characteristics, and registrars’ clinical behaviours) with GP registrars training being undertaken in areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis from the Registrars’ Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study. ReCEnT is an ongoing, multi-centre, cohort study that documents 60 consecutive consultations by each GP registrar once in each of their three six-monthly training terms. The outcome factor was the practice location’s level of socioeconomic disadvantage, defined using the Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage (SEIFA-IRSD). The odds of being in the lowest quintile was compared to the other four quintiles. Independent variables related to the registrar, patient, practice, and consultation. Results: A total of 1,736 registrars contributed 241,945 consultations. Significant associations of training being in areas of most disadvantage included: the registrar being full-time, being in training term 1, being in the rural training pathway; patients being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, or from a non-English-speaking background; and measures of continuity of care. Conclusions: Training in areas of greater social disadvantage, as well as addressing community need, may provide GP registrars with richer learning opportunities.