Abstract Background There is a recognised desire to teach amongst GP trainees yet limited formal opportunities to do this. There are known benefits of near-peer teaching to both teacher and learner, but minimal research investigating the role of GP trainees as teachers in a clinical setting. This study aims to evaluate the views of GP trainees participating in a teaching scheme piloted at the University of Manchester. Methods This mixed-methods study was conducted over a three-year period. In years one and three, evaluation was undertaken using questionnaires comprising Likert scale items and free-text responses ( n = 11). In the second year, qualitative data was collected via a focus group with GP trainees following their teaching experiences ( n = 8). Subsequently, a thematic analysis was conducted. Results GP trainees reported benefits including improved clinical skills, job satisfaction and development of leadership skills. There was a noted impact on their teaching skills, as GP trainees demonstrated their ability to be adaptable to learners’ needs and develop interactive, structured teaching sessions. The main challenges identified were organisation and time management, balancing responsibilities and adapting to student needs. Trainees unanimously felt the scheme allowed them to meet their portfolio requirements, develop their teaching skills and made them more likely to consider pursuing medical education as part of their future careers. All participants expressed a desire to continue with teaching and reported improved job satisfaction. Conclusion Participation in a near-peer teaching scheme can have significant positive impacts on GP trainees’ personal and professional development. Despite some challenges, trainees reported numerous benefits from undertaking the scheme. Formal teaching opportunities for GP trainees could contribute to the development of a skilled and motivated future workforce of clinician-educators in general practice.
Merrifield et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: