ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
The general practice specialist examination - examiners' perspectives on the status quo and future development: An exploratory qualitative study.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.