PubMed · 8302627
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
T Reid. Helpful liaisons.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8302627/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Practice professional development plans (PPDPs) began to replace the Postgraduate Education Allowance (PGEA) for general practitioners in England and Wales from April 2000. The origin of this change lies with those with educational expertise who have been concerned that the PGEA fails to encourage GPs to define their own learning needs, fails to encourage practice-based learning and fails to influence their working behaviour. The policy has been influenced however, by wider political developments which view PPDPs as a means to ensure national standards are met, to reassure the public, provide uniformity and deal with underperforming doctors. This mixture of influences has resulted in conflicting areas within PPDPs. There are different emphases on whether learning needs should be defined from the perspective of the individual or from the perspective of wider needs within the NHS. There are conflicting views about the desirability of multi- or uniprofessional learning and conflicting views about whether PPDPs are appropriate for dealing with failing doctors. PPDPs are based on a particular theory of adult learning - andragogy - which arguably fails to account for wider, richer and more significant forms of learning.
BACKGROUND: Recent policy reports highlight the need to increase the number of primary care practitioners with academic experience, research skills and higher level qualifications. Various courses, training schemes and awards are available but it is not clear what advice and support might best assist practitioners to access and successfully pursue such opportunities. AIM: To understand and document the professional development support needs of primary care practitioners who wish to develop their own paths forward in research. METHOD: A research adviser based in the Unit of General Practice, University of Cambridge invited enquiries on any aspect of research activity from practitioners. Summaries of contacts, enquiries and other relevant issues were prepared on a monthly basis. Through the process of offering help and through reflexive engagement with the summaries we sought to understand and document practitioner support needs. FINDINGS: Many enquiries from practitioners concerned professional development. Practitioners requested help before embarking on a new course of action and during the course of their progress along a chosen track. The advice required went beyond the provision of information about the opportunities which existed and often evolved into a mentoring relationship. The impact of the advice offered can be viewed in terms of contribution to the journey of the individual practitioner and contribution to nationally recognized strategic aims. CONCLUSION: The need for professional development advice and educational guidance for those interested in research may be more widespread than appreciated. If this need is to be successfully addressed we should consider the skills and expertise required of advisers and the specific outcomes to be anticipated from their roles.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.