RACGP educational framework

The RACGP educational framework

Development, implementation and evaluation of the RACGP educational framework

Last revised: 17 Feb 2021

The RACGP educational framework was developed through a formative evaluation approach, which was considered appropriate in recognition that this is the first version of the framework. The formative evaluation aimed to ensure that the framework had clear evidence-based principles, aims and objectives, as well as articulated outcomes that can be used to evaluate the framework.

The development of the RACGP educational framework has involved broad stakeholder consultation, internal and external to the RACGP, through multiple reviews and forums. This process has been essential for facilitating informed decision making, shaping the final version of the framework, and determining whether the framework is likely to be successful in delivering its intended outcomes. Ongoing consultation will also occur as components of the framework are developed, implemented, evaluated and revised.

Once finalised, the framework will be implemented in two ways. First, it will be embedded into the RACGP’s internal processes. Second, it will be published and disseminated to ensure it is available for learners, educators and educational programs.

To ensure the framework remains current, a three-yearly formal review process will be established. Triggers for initiating interim reviews will also be identified. These triggers could include significant changes in an educational imperative.

A key objective in the implementation of the RACGP educational framework is to provide clear direction to the revision of the RACGP guiding instruments. Revision of the guiding instruments provides the opportunity to align these more closely with the educational framework, thereby improving the coherence of RACGP education. To ensure that the guiding instruments are appropriately aligned with the framework, indicators to support future revisions will be identified, utilising the expertise of the national clinical leads and senior medical educators.

An evaluation plan is also being developed for implementing the framework (including evaluating revisions to guiding instruments). This plan will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders to determine the indicators and methods used to measure the framework’s primary intended outcomes. Evaluation of the revised guiding instruments, which are key to implementing the framework, will be important for this process.

The intended outcomes of implementing the framework are separated into short- to intermediate-term outcomes and long-term outcomes. Short- to intermediate-term outcomes include that:
  • the RACGP educational framework is evidence based
  • the framework responds (and is revised) as national health requirements and educational imperatives change
  • revisions of the Profile of the GP, Curriculum and RACGP education policies and standards are informed by the educational framework and its guiding principles
  • the framework provides a guide for educational program development, educators and learners.
The long-term outcomes of implementing the framework include that RACGP:
  • educational management and delivery are integrated across divisions
  • education is developed coherently across the learning continuum
  • education meets its educational imperatives.
  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