GP training practices and quality of patient care: Ethnographic study
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Identifying potential causal mechanism(s) for the relationship between GP training practice status and improved quality of patient care - an ethnographic study
IRAS ID
228794
Contact name
Sanjiv Ahluwalia
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Health Education England
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 1 days
Research summary
Recent studies have highlighted statistical associations between being a registered GP training practice and patient satisfaction and clinical indicators. There is limited existing research that considers how being a site for GP training influences practice performance. A review of the established literature suggests there are insufficient conceptual arguments to support a robust causal claim. There is a need for plausible/parsimonious theoretical explanation of how training practice status could lead to this outcome and therefore more research is needed to support a claim for a causal relationship between the two.
I shall draw on the writings of Brown and Duguid who describe the interplay between work, learning, and innovation as a useful theoretical framework for this study. I shall conduct an ethnographic study in two practices (one training and another non-training) over a period of 6-9 months observing their working practices. This will involve using several data collection strategies including interviews with staff, observations of staff-patient interactions, staff-staff interactions and analysis of relevant documents. Analysis will be conducted to identify potential explanatory mechanisms. All data will be collected and stored in appropriate and secure systems per the requirements of the Data Protection Act. All collated data will be anonymized. Informed consent will be sought from individual sites before starting the research. I shall also ask for consent involving staff and patients when observing or interviewing.
The results of this study will be of interest to clinical educators when considering optimising educational practice, clinical commissioners when considering how best to improve patient outcomes and academics in identifying priorities for educational research in this area.
REC name
London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/LO/1052
Date of REC Opinion
27 Jul 2017
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion