4.4 Article

Developing a curriculum statement based on clinical practice: genetics in primary care

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE
Volume 59, Issue 559, Pages 99-103

Publisher

ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp09X395094

Keywords

curriculum; family practice; genetics

Funding

  1. NHS West Midlands Workforce Deanery
  2. Department of Health
  3. Welsh Assembly Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Advances in medical genetics are increasingly being incorporated into clinical management outside specialist genetic services. This study was therefore undertaken to develop learning outcomes in genetics for general practice specialty training, using methods to ensure the knowledge, skills, and attitudes relevant to genetics in primary care were identified. Aim To identify key knowledge, skills, and attitudes in genetics and to synthesise these into learning outcomes to assist training in genetics for primary care. Design of study Delphi survey and review by expert group. Setting Primary care practices and Regional Genetics Centre in the West Midlands region of the UK. Method A modified Delphi survey involved GP trainers, programme directors, and geneticists (n = 60). The results, along with results from a survey of GP registrars, were reviewed by an expert group, which included GPs, geneticists, and educationalists. Results Core genetics topics for GPs were identified, prioritised, and developed into competency statements in the style of the curriculum structure of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Conclusion The development of the GP curriculum statement Genetics in Primary Care was based on a study of educational needs, incorporating the views of practitioners (GP trainers, programme directors, and registrars) and specialists (clinical geneticists). This inclusive approach has enabled the identification of learning outcomes which directly reflect clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available