Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41826941›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Co-design and validation of a tool for monitoring and improving the quality of general practice learning environments.

Samia Toukhsati, Belinda O'Sullivan, Tina George, Leila Greenfield, Simon Morgan, Rebecca Kippen, Carla Taylor

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Samia ToukhsatiGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Belinda O'SullivanGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia. Belinda.osullivan@monash.edu.
Tina GeorgeGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Leila GreenfieldGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Simon MorganGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Rebecca KippenGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Carla TaylorGeneral Practice Supervision Australia (GPSA), Level 40/140 William Street, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Aged Care Australian Government General Practice Training ProgramRoyal Australian College of General Practitioners Education Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous quality improvement of general practice learning environments is critical for training the next generation of general practitioners (GPs). An evidence-based framework (the General Practice Clinical Learning Environment Framework or GPCLE Framework) describes six elements which are important for best practice learning in general practice. However, there is no validated tool to guide the implementation of quality learning. This research aimed to draw from the GPCLE Framework to develop and validate a tool with specific criteria and evidence-based standards, one that is useful and practical for benchmarking and developing higher quality general practice learning environments for general practice registrars.

methodsThis national study applied co-design methods (June 2023-June 2024) engaging various stakeholders, including practice managers, GPs and general practice supervisors (trainers), registrars (trainees), medical educators and training directors, across three stages. In phase 1, the draft tool was developed using a broad literature review, Delphi-style workshop and expert review. In phase 2, a survey involved field testing concepts across the general practice training sector to inform refinements to the criteria and standards. In phase 3, the tool was pilot tested in two general practices, comparing an online self-assessment process with an objective on-site evaluation by the research team, coupled with interview feedback to inform relevance, practicality, and feasibility.

resultsThe final GPCLE tool comprised demographic questions and eleven criteria with associated evidence-based standards, self-assessed as ‘yes/no/unsure/not applicable’ based on the available evidence. These provide a performance rating on a three-point continuum, from satisfactory to commendable and then exemplary. The tool aligned with the original GPCLE Framework. When piloted, it took around 20 min to complete and practices found it relevant, practical, and feasible.

conclusionThe GPCLE tool could be useful for practices to undertake in-practice reviews of the quality of the learning environment for general practice registrars. This could stimulate more specific planning and improvements for practices to strive towards achieving higher performing standards, above and beyond meeting minimum requirements as a training practice. Further, it could also be applied to planning for accreditation, or identifying practices delivering best practice training which can provide exemplars to the sector.

Indexed as

General PracticeQuality ImprovementBenchmarkingHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesGeneral practiceMedical educationQuality improvementVocational

Identifiers

PMID41826941
PMCPMC13097730

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.