RACGP educational framework

The RACGP educational framework

Appendix 1: RACGP Profile of the general practitioner

Last revised: 17 Feb 2021


The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) published the ‘Competency profile of the Australian general practitioner at the point of Fellowship’ (the Competency Profile) in 2016. The Competency Profile articulates the required core competencies of a specialist general practitioner (GP) at the point of Fellowship, with a depiction of the context into which those competencies are applied. It represents the skill set that an Australian GP should possess for unsupervised specialist general practice in any Australian setting.

The structure of the Competency Profile complements that of the RACGP Curriculum for Australian General Practice (the Curriculum). It is structured around the same domains and same core skills that sit under those domains. It includes the competency outcome statements found in the Curriculum’s Core skills unit (CS16), and adds a further four from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health core skills unit (AH16). In addition, the Competency Profile includes two categories of statements under each domain. These are the:

  • scope of general practice service to the Australian community
  • competency indicators.

The Competency Profile is currently used as a reference point for:

  • education providers delivering training programs for GPs on pathways to Fellowship
  • GPs preparing for Fellowship
  • Fellowship assessments.

In its current state, the Competency Profile applies to only a single point on the learning journey of a GP – at the point of being awarded Fellowship. It provides no view of the GP prior to Fellowship, nor the GP with an extended range of skills.

The structure and form of the Competency Profile can be challenging to grasp. The categories of ‘Scope of practice’, ‘Core skills’, ‘Competency outcomes’ and ‘Competency indicators’ are not well defined. Each of these categories contains a mix of statements that don’t clearly match the category. Many of the statements are what GPs do, described with increasing granularity across each category. There is also not a clear correlation of competency outcomes to competency indicators.

There is also a lost opportunity to use the Competency Profile as a descriptive picture of the career of a GP over time to inspire and attract the next generation of GPs. It does not provide a clear vision of the professional GP, and the positive impact and benefits GPs bring to a community.


As a guiding instrument within the RACGP educational framework, the Profile of the GP should be:

  • an inspiration for those contemplating or engaging in a career as an Australian GP
  • a public statement of the RACGP’s view on what an Australian GP is, and the essential contribution GPs make to Australian communities and society
  • an expression of the values that the RACGP holds for the profession
  • a guide for
    • all RACGP education activities, including learning, training, selection,
      assessment and remediation
    • GPs at all stages of educational life, including prevocational, vocational, continuing professional development, and those developing an extended range of skills or returning to practice
    • the RACGP Curriculum and RACGP education policies and standards.

In order to achieve these purposes, the Profile of the GP must align with the RACGP educational principles. It also needs to be:

  • Broad in scope

Covering the:

  • range of roles and activities undertaken by Australian GPs, both as individuals and collectively as a profession, including
    • clinical and non-clinical
    • advocacy and advisory
    • leadership and academic
  • diverse contexts that the Australian GP works within, including
    • rural and remote settings
    • populations with diverse needs
    • local and national arenas
  • different stages of the GP’s professional journey, particularly at entrance to a pathway to Fellowship, at Fellowship, and when extending expertise.
  • Global in its representation of an Australian GP

Describing:

  • the values that the Australian GP embraces
  • the GP’s core and extended scope of practice
  • the ethical conduct to which the Australian GP subscribes, aligning with the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) Code of Conduct
  • Granular in its detail of the competencies of an Australian GP

Providing details to inform:

  • selection
  • learning
  • training
  • assessment
  • remediation.

The Profile of the GP needs to align with current models of competency- and outcomes-based educational frameworks. These provide conceptual models of ‘knowing’ that reflect the nature of learning framed by its purpose in a way that can usefully guide education. These models focus on educational outcomes, being the subsequent performance of the learner and the impact of that performance.28 Underpinning this is a concept of global capabilities enabled by the learner acquiring discrete competencies.25,42 Educational focus is then on enabling the learner to achieve both the discrete competencies and global capability. Current international educational models also have taxonomies of knowledge that assist in educational design, as different types of learning are achieved and assessed in different ways. These taxonomies include categories such as knowledge, skills and attitudes, and codified and tacit knowledge. This is represented in Figure A1.1.


Figure A1.1. A competency- and outcomes-based educational framework

The Profile of the GP will provide detail on the competencies and capabilities of the Australian GP that can usefully inform the RACGP Curriculum, educational policies and standards, and educational programs.

 


The development of the RACGP Profile of the GP is a priority, given the current Competency Profile is limited to describing the profile of the Australian GP at the point of Fellowship. For the new Profile of the GP to take its place in the RACGP educational framework, considerable developmental work is required.

It is recommended that this development be undertaken as a substantial project with a project manager, a work group, an advisory group and a governance structure with reporting lines.

The work group requires significant medical education and clinical general practice expertise.

Development of the Profile of the GP must also align closely with development of the RACGP Curriculum. In particular, there must be alignment in layout and the way competencies, outcomes, outcome indicators and scope of practice are categorised.

There is a wide range of stakeholders to be considered and consulted, and important regulatory requirements with which to align. The first task is to identify these. A preliminary, but not exhaustive, list of significant stakeholders to be consulted includes:

  • community representatives, including individuals from the rural and remote context
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
  • representatives from minority populations, including
    • culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities
    • lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) communities
    • migrant and refugee groups
  • RACGP Board, faculties, councils and committees
  • general practice training organisations
  • other education providers, in particular universities, to ensure
    • alignment with graduate outcomes
    • future academic extension and engagement by GPs
  • GPs in training and post-Fellowship GPs
  • GP advocacy groups, such as General Practice Registrars Australia and General Practice Supervisors Australia
  • international medical graduates and Australian doctors changing career paths.

A preliminary, but not exhaustive, list of regulatory institutions, frameworks and documents that the Profile of the GP needs to align with includes:

  • Australian Government health priorities5
  • Department of Health General Practice Training Outcomes Framework
  • Australian qualifications framework43
  • Australian curriculum framework for junior doctors 201244
  • MBA Code of Conduct 201410
  • Australian Medical Council Standards for assessment and accreditation of specialist medical programs and professional development programs 201540
  • MBA ‘Registration standard: Continuing professional development’39
  • Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency38
  • relevant joint consultative committees
  • RACGP strategic plan 2020–22.8
  1. Thomas H, Mitchell G, Rich J, et al. Definition of whole person care in general practice in the English language literature: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2018;8:e023758. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023758.
  2. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Person-centred care. ACSQHC, 2019 [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Patient experiences in Australia: Summary of findings, 2018–19. Canberra: ABS, 2019 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  4. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83(3):457–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  5. Parliament of Australia. The National Health Priority Areas initiative. Current Issues Brief 18 1999–2000. Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2000 [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  6. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. What is general practice? East Melbourne, Vic: RACGP, 2020 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  7. World Health Organization. Closing the gap in a generation: Healthy equity through action on the social determinants of health: Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: WHO, 2008 [Accessed 21 July 2020].
  8. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. RACGP strategic plan 2020–22. East Melbourne, Vic: RACGP, 2020 [Accessed 12 January 2021].
  9. Leeder S, Corbett S, Usherwood T. General practice registrar education beyond the practice: The public health role of general practitioners. Aust Fam Physician 2016;45(5):266–69 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  10. Medical Board of Australia. Good medical practice: A code of conduct for doctors in Australia. Melbourne: MBA, 2014 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  11. Breen KJ, Cordner SM, Thomson CJ, Plueckhahsin, V. Good medical practice: Professionalism, ethics and law. New York. Cambridge University Press, 2010. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  12. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Australian Open Disclosure Framework – Better communication, a better way to care. Sydney: ACSQHC, 2013 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  13. Sturman NJ, Saiepour N. Ethics and professionalism in general practice placements: What should students learn? Aust Fam Physician 2014;43(7):468–72 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  14. World Health Organization. 71st World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolution WHA71.7 on Digital Health. Geneva: WHO, 2018 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  15. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Views and attitudes towards technological innovation in general practice: Survey report 2017. East Melbourne, Vic: RACGP, 2018 [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  16. Rees C, Francis B, Pollard A. The state of medical education research: What can we learn from the outcomes of the UK Research Excellence Framework? Medical Education 2015;49(5):446–48. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  17. Brown J, Bearman M, Kirby C, Molloy E, Colville D, Nestel D. Theory, a lost character? As presented in general practice education research papers. Medical Education 2019;53(5):443–57. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  18. Knowles MS, Holton EF III, Swanson RA. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 7th edn. London: Routledge, 2012. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  19. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  20. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press, 2015. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  21. Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  22. Billett S. Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement. Adult Education Quarterly 2002;53(1):27–43. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  23. Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki RL. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  24. Carraccio C, Englander R, Van Melle E, et al. Advancing competency-based medical education: A charter for clinician–educators. Acad Med 2016;91(5):645–49. [Accessed 19 November 2019].
  25. Australian Medical Council. Competence-based medical education. Consultation paper. Kingston, ACT: AMC, 2010 [Accessed 21 July 2020].
  26. Pangaro L, Ten Cate O. Frameworks for learner assessment in medicine: AMEE Guide No. 78, Medical Teacher 2013;35(6):e1197–1210 direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsbl&AN=RN333042111&site=eds-live&scope=site [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  27. Torre DM, Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM. Theoretical considerations on programmatic assessment. Med Teach 2020;42(2):213–220. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1672863. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  28. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, et al, on behalf of the ICBME collaborators. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2017;39(6):609–16. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  29. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool. AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach 2007;29(9):855–58. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  30. Brown J, Kirby C, Wearne S, Snadden D. Remodelling general practice training: Tension and innovation. Aust J Gen Pract 2019;48(11):773–78 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  31. Bartle E, Thistlewaite E. Becoming a medical educator: Motivation, socialisation and navigation. BMC Med Ed 2014;14, Article 110. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-110. [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  32. Windsor J, Searle J, Hanney A, et al. Building a sustainable clinical academic workforce to meet the future healthcare needs of Australian and New Zealand: Report from the first summit meeting. Intern Med J 2015;45(9):965–71. doi: 10.1111/imj.12854. [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  33. beyondblue. National Mental Health Survey of Doctors and Medical Students. Hawthorn, Vic: beyondblue, 2013 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  34. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Self-care and mental health resources for general practitioners. East Melbourne, Vic: RACGP, 2018 [Accessed 19 November 2020].
  35. National Rural Health Commissioner. National Rural Generalist Taskforce: Advice to the National Rural Health Commissioner on the development of the National Rural Generalist Pathway. Canberra: National Rural Generalist Taskforce, 2018 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  36. Coalition of Peaks. National Agreement on Closing the Gap, 2020. Canberra: Coalition of Peaks, 2020 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  37. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: Position statement. East Melbourne, Vic: RACGP, 2017 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  38. Queensland Government. Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  39. Medical Board of Australia. Registration standard: Continuing professional development. Melbourne: MBA, 2016 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  40. Australian Medical Council. Standards for assessment and accreditation of specialist medical programs and professional development programs by the Australian Medical Council 2015. Kingston, ACT: AMC, 2015 [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  41. Andresen L. A useable, trans-disciplinary conception of scholarship. Higher education research and development 2000;19(2):137–53. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  42. Swanwick T, Forrest KAT, O’Brien BC. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory, and practice. 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018. [Accessed 20 July 2020].
  43. Australian Qualifications Framework Council. Australian qualifications framework. 2nd edn. Canberra: AQFC Council, 2013 [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  44. Confederation of Postgraduate Medical Education Councils. Australian curriculum framework for junior doctors. Version 3.1. Melbourne: CPMEC, 2012 [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  45. Englander R, Cameron T, Ballard AJ, Dodge J, Bull J, Aschenbrener CA. Toward a common taxonomy of competency domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Acad Med 2013;88(8):1088–94. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829a3b2b. [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  46. Weggemans MM, van Dijk B, van Dooijeweert B, Veenendaal AG, Ten Cate O. The postgraduate medical education pathway: An international comparison. GMS J Med Educ 2017;34(5):Doc63. [Accessed 3 August 2020].
  47. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Englander R, Snell L, Frank JR, on behalf of the ICBME collaborators. A call to action: The controversy of and rationale for competency-based medical education. Med Teach 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315067.
  48. Ten Cate O. Competency-based postgraduate medical education: Past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ 2017;34(5):Doc69. doi: 10.3205/zma001146.
  49. Grant J. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice. 2nd edn. London: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
  50. Ten Cate O, Carraccio C. Envisioning a true continuum of competency-based medical education, training, and practice. Acad Med 2019;94(9):1283–88. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002687.
  51. Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien BC, editors. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2011.
  52. Eraut M. Informal learning in the workplace. Stud Contin Educ 2004;26(2):247–73.
  53. Billett S. Authenticity and a culture of practice within modes of skill development. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research 1993;2(1):1–29.
  54. Hunter, K, Thomson, B. A scoping review of social determinants of health curricula in post-graduate medical education. Can Med Educ J 2019;10(3):e61–71 [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  55. McDonald M, Lavelle C, Wen M, Sherbino J, Hulme J. The state of health advocacy training in postgraduate medical education: A scoping review. Med Educ 2019;53(12):1209–20. doi: 10.1111/medu.13929. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  56. de la Croix A, Veen M. The reflective zombie: Problematizing the conceptual framework of reflection in medical education. Perspect Med Educ 2018;7(6):394–400. doi:10.1007/s40037-018-0479-9. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  57. Schei E, Fuks A, Boudreau JD. Reflection in medical education: Intellectual humility, discovery, and know-how. Med Health Care Philos 2019;22(2):167–78. doi: 10.1007/s11019-018-9878-2. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  58. Sales B, Macdonald A, Scallan S, Crane S. How can educators support general practice (GP) trainees to develop resilience to prevent burnout? Educ Prim Care 2016;27(6):487–93. doi:10.1080/14739879.2016.1217170. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  59. Sultan N, Torti J, Haddara W, Inayat A, Inayat H, Lingard L. Leadership development in postgraduate medical education: A systematic review of the literature. Acad Med 2109;94(3):440–49. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002503. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  60. Sadowski B, Cantrell S, Barelski A, O›Malley PG, Hartzell JD. Leadership training in graduate medical education: A systematic review. J Grad Med Educ 2018;10(2):134–48. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-17-00194.1. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  61. Manski-Nankervis JE, Sturgiss EA, Liaw ST, Spurling GK, Mazza D. General practice research: An investment to improve the health of all Australians. Med J Aust 2020;212(9):398–400.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50589. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  62. Mesko B, Győrffy Z, Kollár J. Digital literacy in the medical curriculum: A course with social media tools and gamification. JMIR Med Educ 2015;1(2):e6. doi: 10.2196/mededu.4411. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  63. Sturgiss E, Haesler E, Anderson K. General practice trainees face practice ownership with fear. Aust Health Rev 2016;40(6):661–66. doi: 10.1071/AH15153. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  64. Tekian A, Hodges BD, Roberts TE, Schuwirth L, Norcini J. Assessing competencies using milestones along the way. Med Teach 2015;37(4):399–402. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.993954. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  65. Reed S, Shell R, Kassis K, et al. Applying adult learning practices in medical education. Curr Probl Paediatr Adolesc Health Care 2014:44(6);170–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cppeds.2014.01.008. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  66. World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians (WONCA). Bangkok: WONCA, 2020. Available at www.globalfamilydoctor.com [Accessed 20 November 2020]. [Accessed 20 November 2020].
  67. United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Prototype of a national curriculum. Paris: UNESCO, 2017 [Accessed 2 December 2020].
  68. Schneiderhan J, Guetterman TC, Dobson M, 2019, Curriculum development: A how to primer. Fam Med Community Health 7(2):e000046. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2018-000046. [Accessed 2 December 2020].
This event attracts CPD points and can be self recorded

Did you know you can now log your CPD with a click of a button?

Create Quick log

Advertising