×

Web site maintenance has been scheduled on 20/01/2022 from 9pm to 10pm AEDT, minor disruptions may occur.


RACGP educational framework

The RACGP educational framework

Appendix 2: Curriculum for Australian General Practice

The RACGP educational framework
Download PDF
    9. Appendix 2: Curriculum for Australian General Practice

Last revised: 17 Feb 2021


The Curriculum for Australian General Practice (the Curriculum) has changed format several times since its inception. The current version of the Curriculum was released in 2016. It provides competency-based outcomes across the general practitioner (GP) learning continuum, from entry to general practice training, to GP practice under supervision to post-Fellowship learning. It is composed of several documents and levels, as detailed below. Current and older versions of the Curriculum are available on the website

The components of the 2016 Curriculum are:

  • core skills units
    • Core skills unit (CS16)
    • Rural health core skills unit (RH16)
    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health core skills unit (AH16)
  • contextual units.

The core skills units are arranged in a competency and outcomes framework, with competencies and outcomes grouped in a hierarchical way:

1. Domains (5)
1.1. Core skills (13)
1.1.1. Competency outcomes (46)
1.1.1.1. Criteria (343)
  1. Pre–general practice (121)
  2. General practice under supervision (145)
  3. General practice – lifelong learning (77)

At the top level are five discipline-specific categories known as the ‘domains’ of general practice, each representing a major concept in the scope of general practice. Under each domains is a small number of global ‘core skills’ that describe, at a high level, the activities, behaviours, skills and attributes of the Australian GP. These are detailed with greater detail under the ‘competency outcomes’ and their component ‘criteria’. The criteria are divided into three conceptual stages in life-long learning. The core skills are common across each of the three curriculum units (CS16, RH16 and AH16), while the competency outcomes and criteria are specific to each unit.

The ‘contextual units’ are short overviews of different areas of activity that GPs undertake.

Assessment processes and content currently sit external to the Curriculum and are managed separately.

The Curriculum is used by:
  • medical educators and education providers to develop their training programs
  • The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) assessment team, which maps exam questions and assessments against the Curriculum. These assessments include those used for selection into general practice training, assessing progress and for examining suitability for Fellowship
  • GPs in training as a guide for their learning and exam preparation.

Identified areas for development within the Curriculum include:

  • revising the Curriculum structure, including
    • strengthening the underlying competency and outcomes framework45–47
    • anchoring it to the Profile of the GP
    • aligning it with benchmarked international models of competency-based
      medical education44,45,48
    • improving mapping between outcomes, competencies and assessment
    • improving accessibility
  • aligning the Curriculum with current expectations of a curriculum49 to include
    • programs of assessment50
    • detailed syllabus with differentiation of different types of knowing
      (eg information/skills/values and codified/tacit)51,52
    • flexible educational processes, in accordance with Australia’s diversity and vast geographical footprint
    • mapping of types of knowing to educational processes51,53
  • extending the scope of the Curriculum to cover all RACGP education, including
    • programs on the General Practice Experience Pathway to Fellowship
    • continuing professional development (CPD)
    • extended skills
  • reinforcing a focus on education that addresses social inequity related to
    • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health
    • culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) population groups
    • people with disabilities
    • lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ+) communities
    • refugee groups
  • supporting doctors who are
    • international medical graduates
    • Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
  • expanding areas of the Curriculum that are currently under-represented, including
    • social determinants of health54
    • GPs as health advocates55
    • patient health literacy
    • identified priority areas (national5 and RACGP identified)
    • reflective learning56,57
    • GP health and wellbeing/self-care58
    • facilitation behaviour change models54
    • leadership, research and teaching59–61
    • digital literacy62
    • climate change and its impact on health
    • practice management63
  • an ongoing plan for evaluation and review, and a robust process of ongoing
    quality improvement.64–65


As a guiding instrument, the Curriculum will clearly articulate the skills, knowledge, values and behaviours of the Australian GP, and be a true representation of contemporary medical education. It will provide a coherent and logical picture of the subjects to be studied, the teaching, learning and assessment processes to be used and the intended outcomes of the education.42 It will also aim to ensure that general practice education is relevant, high quality, and meets the needs of pre- and post-Fellowship GPs, their educators and supervisors, patients and the diverse Australian community.

To meet this purpose, the Curriculum will need to:

  • include an overarching competency framework, including syllabus, facilitation methods and assessment requirements
  • provide a clear set of definitions and terminology and consistent use of language
  • clearly articulate measurable global outcomes that correspond with the Profile of the GP
  • align with international models and be supported by current literature and best practice methods
  • be applicable across a range of contexts and the full length of the GP professional life, from pre-GP terms through to Fellowship training and CPD
  • be informed by the RACGP educational guiding principles and internal and external general practice educational imperatives
  • demonstrate cultural responsiveness by reflecting Australia’s diverse population and the local needs of Australians through consultation with relevant stakeholders, including but not limited to the RACGP Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health faculty, RACGP Rural faculty, RACGP Specific Interests faculty and the Migrant and Refugee Health Partnership.


The Curriculum is reviewed and revised every 3–5 years. It entered its current review cycle in 2019, and is expected to be released ahead of the transition from the Australian General Practice Training (AGPT) Program and the Remote Vocational Training Scheme to RACGP-led training in 2022.

The first steps in moving the Curriculum towards its future vision are:

  • identifying key national and international frameworks that inform Curriculum development40–42,44,66,67
  • identifying key literature that informs Curriculum development49,68
  • creating a consultation plan
  • reviewing content for currency and accuracy and checking for content gaps
  • determining consistent terminology, definitions and language to be used within the instrument
  • creating plans for
    • achieving better alignment with the other parts of the RACGP educational framework
    • building greater cohesion within the current parts of the Curriculum
    • including assessment as part of the Curriculum
    • building a syllabus
    • including educational processes within the Curriculum.

Overarching objectives for future reviews include creating a cohesive and coherent Curriculum that:

  • achieves national consistency in RACGP education while recognising the need for regional flexibility
  • is based on contemporary competency- and outcomes-based medical education
  • is internally cohesive
  • includes educational content, processes and assessment as well as educational outcomes
  • has an embedded evaluation cycle
  • has high utility across all education providers.
  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