Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39962483›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

A novel general practice registrar to supervisor feedback system for distance education in rural areas.

Taras Mikulin, Ronda Gurney, Patrick Giddings, Belinda O'Sullivan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Taras MikulinRemote Vocational Training Scheme, PO Box 37, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia. tmikulin@rvts.org.au.
Ronda GurneyRemote Vocational Training Scheme, PO Box 37, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia.
Patrick GiddingsRemote Vocational Training Scheme, PO Box 37, Albury, NSW, 2640, Australia.
Belinda O'SullivanUniversity of Queensland, Locked Bag 9009 Toowoomba, Queensland, 4350, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4068-3240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality supervision in general practice (GP) is critical for the progress and satisfaction of GP registrars and for attracting future rural GPs. However, there is limited research to inform the implementation of feedback systems for enhancing supervision by rural supervisors, and no published evidence specific to distance education where a remote supervisor may be in a different practice and supervising from afar. This study aimed to develop and explore the outcomes of an easy-to-administer, safe and constructive, registrar-to-supervisor feedback system for a distance (or remote) supervision model.

methodsParticipatory action research involved the design of a standardised short-form questionnaire and an administration, data analysis and feedback process between registrars and supervisors. The questionnaire was administered each year between 16-20 weeks of the first year of registrar training within a 3-4-year rural and remote GP training program-the Remote Vocational Training Scheme (RVTS) (2020-2022). Participation in the project was voluntary. Registrars were asked 12 standardised questions about supervision over three domains: bond strength, task agreement and goal setting. Responses were summed by domain and evaluated using set criteria of high (> 80%), medium (51% to 79%) or low (50% or lower). High- and medium-level narrative feedback reports were provided to supervisors. Low domain scores were followed up by relevant internal staff to negotiate and resolve issues.

resultsAll 106 commencing registrars completed the questionnaire, of which n = 99/106 (93%) reported high performance related to the bond with their supervisor, n = 94/106 (89%) reported high performance on training tasks, and n = 53/106 (50%) reported medium or low performance for supervisor's understanding the registrar goals. The majority of supervisors found the feedback useful. Ten registrars identified to be in need (9% of 106) were offered additional support.

conclusionsThe system was found to be feasible, safe, and constructive for reviewing the quality of a distance supervision model for rural and remote registrars. It enabled prompt resolution of issues that would have otherwise been difficult to address and facilitated more open discussions about the quality of supervision. This process has been standardised within the RVTS.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceGeneral PracticeRural Health ServicesFeedbackFormative FeedbackHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesDistance clinical educationFeedbackGeneral practiceRemoteRuralSupervision

Identifiers

PMID39962483
PMCPMC11831787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.