S and full research articles published in SLEEP, the official journal of the APSS. Sleep and sleep disorder scientific findings.

Objective Synthesise evidence about the impact of family medicine/general practice (FM) clerkships on undergraduate medical students, teaching general/family practitioners (FPs) and/or their patients. Data sources Medline, ERIC, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge searched from 21 November to 17 December 2013. Primary, empirical, quantitative or qualitative studies, since 1990, with abstracts included. No country restrictions. Full text languages: English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch or Italian. Review methods Independent selection and data extraction by two authors using predefined data extraction fields, including Kirkpatrick’s levels for educational intervention outcomes, study quality indicators and Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) strength of findings’ grades. Descriptive narrative synthesis applied. Results Sixty-four included articles: impact on students (48), teaching FPs (12) and patients (8). Sample sizes: 16-1095 students, 3-146 FPs and 94-2550 patients. Twenty-six studies evaluated at Kirkpatrick level 1, 26 at level 2 and 6 at level 3. Only one study achieved BEME’s grade 5. The majority was assessed as grade 4 (27) and 3 (33). Students reported satisfaction with content and process of teaching as well as learning in FM clerkships. They enhanced previous learning, and provided unique learning on dealing with common acute and chronic conditions, health maintenance, disease prevention, communication and problem-solving skills. Students’ attitudes towards FM were improved, but new or enhanced interest in FM careers did not persist without change after graduation. Teaching FPs reported increased job satisfaction and stimulation for professional development, but also increased workload and less productivity, depending on the setting. Overall, student’s presence and participation did not have a negative impact on patients. Conclusions Research quality on the impact of FM clerkships is still limited, yet across different settings and countries, positive impact is reported on students, FPs and patients. Future studies should involve different stakeholders, medical schools and countries, and use standardised and validated evaluation tools.

High-quality training is a prerequisite to teaching future general practitioners. To inspire and guide all countries to implement General Practice (GP) specialist education and training and bring it to the highest standards, we aimed, within the European context, to produce a collaborative document entitled ‘Educational Requirements for GP Specialty Training’. Through an iterative process existing documents from the European Academy of Teachers in GP and Family Medicine (EURACT) and the World Organization of Family Medicine Doctors (WONCA) were collated. Other reports, grey literature about specialty GP training and requirements for trainees, trainers and training institutions were included. State-of-the-art GP specialty training ‘core’ competences, characteristics and essential features of GP are described. General principles and specified tools for training and assessment are summarised. Recommendations on the duration and place(s) of training and selection of trainees are provided. Trainers should be accredited teachers and quality training institutions are essential. New insights, existing gaps and issues for debate have highlighted areas for further research. This document was produced in the specific context of Europe but its general principles are relevant to GP training in all countries.

During workplace based learning students develop professional competences and an appropriate performance. To gain insight in the learning process and to evaluate competences and performance, assessment tools are essential and need to be of good quality. We aimed to construct a competence inventory applicable as an instrument to measure the content validity of workplace based assessment tools, such as portfolio.

COVID-19 has presented a substantial burden on students and healthcare staff. This mixed-method, descriptive and correlational study aimed to: 1) describe academic; and 2) professional burnout levels; 3) their associations with working in COVID-19-related care; and 4) with perceived COVID-19 impact on studies and internships among medical students and residents. We hypothesized burnout levels to be high; those involved in COVID-19 care to experience higher impact of COVID-19 on studies and work, and to experience higher levels of academic and professional burnout than those not involved in COVID-19 care; academic and professional burnout to be higher when perceived burden due to COVID-19 was higher. During first lockdown in Belgium, a mixed-method cross-sectional survey assessed academic burnout (MBI-SS) and professional burnout in relation to internships and residency (MBI-HSS). Correlations and t-tests tested associations of burnout with involvement in COVID-19-related care and perceived impact of COVID-19 on studies and work (SPSS). Participants provided open-ended comments which were thematically analysed (NVivo). In total, 194 medical students and residents participated (79.5% female, M age = 24.9 ± 2.5). Emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation were high in professional burnout, but moderate in academic burnout. Those involved in COVID-19 related care perceived a higher impact of COVID-19 on their studies and internship/residency and have higher professional burnout, but do not show a higher academic burnout. Those who have a higher perceived impact of COVID-19 on their studies scored higher on academic burnout. Participants mentioned an increased workload (e.g., having to be constantly available and constantly adapt), distress (e.g., uncertainty, fatigue, fear for impact on significant others), fewer learning opportunities (e.g., cancelled internships, changing learning methods), lack of relatedness with patients and supervisors (e.g., lack of respect and understanding from supervisors, distance created by phone consultations with patients) and cynicism towards remote care or non-medical tasks (e.g., considering what they do is not useful or not what they trained for). Students and residents showed indications of professional and academic burnout in relation to the COVID-19 situation. Interventions are needed that can meet the needs of achieving learning outcomes, managing extreme situations and relatedness.

Background: COVID-19 has changed General Practice (GP) education as well as GP clinical activities. These changes have had an impact on the well-being of medical trainees and the role of GP plays in the society. We have therefore aimed to investigate the impact that COVID-19 has had on GP trainees and trainers in four domains: education, workload, practice organization and the role of GP in society. Design: a cross-sectional study design was used. Methods: The Interuniversity Centre for the Education of General Practitioners sent an online survey with close-ended and open-ended questions to all GP trainees and trainers in Flanders, active in the period March – September 2020. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze the quantitative data and thematic analysis for the qualitative data. Results: 216 (response 25%) GP trainees and 311 (response 26%) trainers participated. GP trainees (63%, N = 136) and trainers (76%, N = 236) reported new learning opportunities since the COVID-19 pandemic. The introduction of telehealth consulting and changing guidelines required new communication and organizational skills. Most of the GP trainees (75%, n = 162) and trainers (71%, n = 221) experienced more stress at work and an overload of administrative work. The unfamiliarity with a new infectious disease and the fact that COVID-19 care compromised general GP clinical activities, created insecurity among GP trainers and trainees. Moreover, GP trainees felt that general GP activities were insufficiently covered during the COVID-19 pandemic for their training in GP. GP trainers and trainees experienced mutual support, and secondary support came from other direct colleagues. Measures such as reducing the writing of medical certificates and financial support for administrative and (para) medical support can help to reprioritize the core of GP care. COVID-19 has enhanced the use of digital learning over peer-to-peer learning and lectures. However, GP trainees and trainers preferred blended learning educational activities. Conclusions: COVID-19 has created learning opportunities such as telehealth consulting and a flexible organization structure. To ensure quality GP education during the pandemic and beyond, regular GP care should remain the core activity of GP trainees and trainers and a balance between all different learning methods should be found.