ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2025
Supervision Preparedness Among GP Registrars in the UK: A Survey Study.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical supervision (CS) plays a vital role in healthcare education and patient safety. As general practice embraces a multidisciplinary workforce, GP registrars are increasingly expected to supervise Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) and medical students from day one after qualifying. However, the extent of their preparedness for such roles remains unclear. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey between August 2024 and January 2025 among UK GP registrars. The survey included quantitative and qualitative items assessing supervision experience, confidence, and perceptions of training. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse the data. Results: A total of 52 registrars responded. The majority (n = 50 [96%]) reported no formal training on how to effectively supervise. Only 15% were supervising medical students, and n = 2 (4%) were supervising AHPs. Key barriers to effective supervision included lack of training, time constraints, and uncertainty about roles. Registrars expressed strong interest in structured training to build confidence in supervision. Conclusions: GP registrars report limited training and confidence in clinical supervision, despite growing expectations to supervise a diverse primary care team. Structured educational interventions as part of continuing professional development are needed to support supervision readiness and ensure safe, effective practice in a multidisciplinary environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.