Programme no. 524-OP
Professional Development
The new GP training scheme in Denmark - content and the process leading to it.
Roar Maagaard*1, Marianne Vedsted2, Søren Prins3, Inger Winther4, Andrew Lurie5, Pernille Jørgensen6
1Center for Medical Education,Aarhus University,8200 Aarhus N,Denmark, 2Public Health,Aarhus University,8000 Aarhus C.,Denmark, 3Center for Medical Education,Aarhus University,8200 Aarhus N,Denmark, 4GP Training,Region North Jutland,Skive,Denmark, 5GP Training,Region Zealand,Copenhagen,Denmark, 6GP Training,Region Capital,Copenhagen,Denmark
* = Presenting author
Objectives: To describe how a profound revision of a national training scheme can be done. Discussion of pro’s et con’s for the chosen method.
Background: The 5 year GP specialist training scheme from 2003 called for revision – primarily due to changes in expectations to GP’s competencies and in changed learning conditions in hospital setting. The new training scheme went into action from 2014.
Results: Despite challenges, a brand new training scheme went into action from 2014. We will present the training scheme in broad details – focusing on:

- the clinical posts in the training scheme (2 ½ years in GP and 2 ½ years in hospital settings)

- the electronic portfolio

- the new assessment methods. The 5 assessment methods will be presented in more detail in 2 other presentations at Nordic Congress 2015.

Material/Methods: The creative process from 2011 to 2013 integrated experiences from trainees, GP-trainers and hospital trainers as the first step. Second step included inspiration from European and non-European training schemes and feedback from patient groups. Third step was teamwork in groups of trainees and GP-trainers/educational coordinators. Fourth step was facing the political and administrative reality – a challenge! Fifth step is implementation in all areas of Denmark.
Conclusion: A good educational process can meet severe political challenges and the end-result will be shaped by it! Despite this fact, we are proud to present a new training scheme preparing the new GP’s for the challenges of the future in general practice.

Points for discussion: Should a revision process of a training scheme be a joint venture between the payers and educationalists from the beginning?

Or: will early involvement of the “payers” hamper the process and lead to a less ambitious result?

What is the optimal distribution of training time between GP and hospital settings?