Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807223›Full record

ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026

The general practice specialist examination - examiners' perspectives on the status quo and future development: An exploratory qualitative study.

Andreas Christian Dreher, Christine Becker, Marco Roos, Attila Altiner, Simon Schwill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS journal for medical education, 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

5 authors.

Andreas Christian DreherUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christine BeckerUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.
Marco RoosUniversity of Augsburg, Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Practice, Augsburg, Germany.
Attila AltinerUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.
Simon SchwillUniversity Hospital Heidelberg, Department for Primary Care and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The specialist examination has a substantial impact on the quality of healthcare delivery. The aim of this study was to explore examiners' perspectives on the current examination format, their motivation for serving as examiners, perceived strengths and weaknesses of the existing assessment, suggestions for improvement, and the perceived effects of Competence Centres for Postgraduate Training (CCPTs). Methods: Examiners from across Germany were recruited and interviewed in semi-structured video interviews using a self-developed interview guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Twelve examiners from six federal states participated. The mean interview duration was 33 minutes (range: 24-57 minutes). Key advantages identified included the one-to-one examination setting, the ability to ensure a minimum standard of specialist competence and the examination's efficiency in terms of time and resources. Oral examinations were perceived as having limited ability to assess the complex clinical competencies required in patient care. Perceived needs for change varied among participants. Suggested improvements included examiner training, the development of shared assessment criteria and the introduction of practical examination components. Longitudinal assessments were also mentioned. Discussion: Examiners recognised limitations of the current examination regarding objectivity, reliability, validity and contextual sensitivity, particularly in relation to the complexity of general practice. Nevertheless, they considered the assessment of a minimum standard of specialist competence to be feasible. The findings reveal a tension between practical feasibility and educational assessment standards. Potential areas for improvement include examiner training, regular exchange among examiners, shared assessment frameworks, a clearer definition of examination objectives and the implementation of longitudinal assessment approaches (e.g. portfolio-based assessment with regular interim assessments).Conclusions: The specialist examination demonstrates considerable potential for further development. Shared assessment frameworks, as developed during examiner training, could provide greater structure to the examination process and may be implemented with relative ease.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementGeneral PracticeClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchCompetence Centres for Postgraduate Trainingexaminer traininggeneral practicepostgraduate medical educationspecialist examination

Identifiers

PMID42807223
PMCPMC13617336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.