Nele R. M. Michels
Roar Maagaard
Igor Švab
Nynke Scherpbier- 1Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
- 2Centre for Health Sciences Education, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- 3Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- 4Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
General Practice/Family Medicine (GP/FM) is a key discipline within primary health care and so by extension for the whole health care system. An essential condition for effective GP/FM care is a work force that is highly qualified. As society is changing rapidly, a revision of the GP/FM definition is ongoing, in addition to a recent movement of identifying related core values. In this paper, we want to give an overview on how these new paths and perspectives are currently reflected in GP/FM teaching and training. We selected four core values that fit in with possible future visions: person-centered care, continuity of care, cooperation in care, and community-oriented care. By a narrative review, we observed that GP/FM education toward core values is often built around overarching topics. Teaching and learning take place in specific contexts, most of all through placements within communities, primary care settings, or hospital wards. Mixed teaching- and training methods are used combining knowledge, skills, and attitude. Furthermore, collaboration with other health professionals and peers is stressed, in addition to the importance of role models, a holistic focus and the involvement of patients. Since these core values are important within GP/FM and rather few studies on the educational aspects and learning tools were found we advocate encouraging each other more to share good practices, certainly the innovative ones specifically related to GP/FM.
Introduction
In 1978, the Alma Ata declaration (WHO) recognized primary health care as the important first contact of the population for their health care, providing preventive, curative, and rehabilitation services for the community (1). This has been re-affirmed in 2018 (2). General Practice/Family Medicine (GP/FM) is a key discipline within primary health care and so by extension for the whole health care system. The WONCA Europe consensus document on the European definition of GP/FM (2002, with revisions in 2005 and 2011) states that “GP/FM is an academic and scientific discipline, with its own educational content, research, evidence base and clinical activity, and a clinical specialty orientated to primary care” (3). An essential condition for effective GP/FM care is a work force that is highly qualified. In order to achieve this, European specialty training centers for GP/FM can rely on European legislation (4) and on the EURACT European Training Requirements (5, 6). The latter is a recently drafted guideline based on the European definition of GP/FM and the 12 characteristics, six core competences, and three features as expressed by the well-known WONCA tree (7). However, society is changing rapidly, and so the organization and objectives of health care. General Practice/Family Medicine is strongly developing worldwide, both in a conceptual and in a technical way (8, 9). The convergence of medicine, psychology, sociology, and technology leads to the achievement of care that is predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory (8, 10, 11).
A pan-European movement toward a revision of the GP/FM definition is ongoing, in addition to a recent movement of identifying related core values. A WONCA Europe Task Force is currently developing a supported European vision, which was presented on the annual WONCA Europe Conference (Berlin/online December 2020). Also, previous activities to establish new core values have already been rolled out in the Netherlands (12) and the Scandinavian countries (13). Revising the GP/FM definition and defining core values will help to better clarify (the importance of) the discipline of GP/FM. This will lead to new core competencies and core tasks for General Practitioners/Family Doctors (GPs/FDs) as well. In the coming years, we will have to secure that future GPs/FDs incorporate these core values in their behavior.
In this paper, we want to give an overview on how these new paths and perspectives are currently reflected in GP/FM teaching and training. Pending the final results of the European vision on core values, we selected four core values that fit in with possible future visions and are based on the thinking that has already been done (12, 13): (1) person-centered care, (2) continuity of care, (3) cooperation in care, and (4) community-oriented care. We questioned how those four values are currently taught in GP/FM oriented training. As a result, good practices will be shown so that they can serve as inspiration.
Methods
We chose to write a narrative review on educational activities with respect to these four core values in order to present the current yet broad perspective (14, 15). We searched for relevant literature and published reports, that cover the four selected core values and their translation into GP/FM education. From the literature we chose the elements that illustrated how we could translate the prevailing discussion on core values in GP/FM to teaching and learning.
Main keywords for the search (PubMed) included the four selected core values (“person-centered care,” “continuity of care,” “cooperation in care,” and “community-oriented care”) in combination with “education or training” and “general practice” or “family medicine.” By the snowball method also other articles or reports were sought. We narrowed the search by selecting only literature in English from the last 10 years. A first screening for relevance for the goal of our study was done by reading titles and abstracts.
Per core value, we summarized and synthesized the findings from the respective articles into a qualitative summary, with references to good practices.
Results
Person-Centered Care
Person-centered care can be defined as seeing a patient as a particular person in a particular context with his or her knowledge, desires, values, preferences, lifestyle, and social circumstances and including the total health perspective. As such, patients are equal partners in planning, developing, and monitoring care to make sure the care provided meets their needs, their realistic health-, and life goals (16–19). The concept of person-centered care is rather new, evolving, and complex, emphasizing the need of new ways to deliver care and look at patient–doctor relationships (19, 20). Conceptual frameworks can give practical guidance both in health care and in teaching and training (20, 21).
Our review showed that some studies are specifically dealing with GP/FM education or training to improve person-centered care (22–24). However, in most of the studies retained, person-centered care as a learning objective is usually mentioned together with other topics such as shared decision making, comprehensive approach, empowerment, compassionate care, etc. (25–31). Moreover, person-centered care and these other topics are often seen as indirect objectives to be taught when organizing training programs around themes as dementia, multimorbidity, or clinical care of refugees (22–24). Gillies pleas for medical humanity as an academic discipline and resource for education (32). This could be feeding specific training programs for person-centered care, which are essential as our modern society is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) (28).
A variety of educational tools, used for person-centered care in GP/FM for both undergraduate students and primary care staff, is described. Willoughby et al. refer to a Longitudinal Family Medicine Experience for first-year medical students (31). Paired to a GP/FD, students encounter patients in the real GP/FM clinical context, writing patient logs, and a reflective essay. To improve health literacy among health professionals an 8 h training–intervention was set up and evaluated in three European countries (30). The training was a combination of knowledge development, practicing communication skills, and skills- and attitude building e.g., around self-management. The participants perceived the training as valuable, although a rather low number of GPs/FDs participated. It is striking that in quite some settings “art” is used as an educational tool; movies, television programs, books, and theater can be instructive sources to enhance knowledge, skills, and attitude related to person-centered care (25, 27, 29, 32). General Practice/Family Medicine teachers can be inspired and helped on their way by offered templates for “Cinemeducation” (25) or by 12 tips to use the Applied Improvisation method (29).
Continuity of Care
Although GPs/FDs often with pride praise both their personal profession and their specialty for delivering continuity of care for patients there are remarkably few research papers on how to teach this to medical students and to GP/FM trainees.
Students have most often a very short stay in GP/FM, so they are not able to get a personal learning experience of how this continuity is of value for both the patient and the healthcare professional. Specific teaching methods have been explored, and the use of standardized patient encounters has shown to be useful in teaching continuity relationships as well as chronic disease management (33). Especially for patients with chronic conditions a longitudinal relationship with their doctor is beneficial. In that respect, Preci et al. suggested a model where students “adopt” a chronic patient for a period (34). They showed that this method enabled students to practice more empathetic medicine in the future and to improve the skills needed in a complex relationship.
General Practice/Family Medicine trainees have longer clinical training periods and hence clinical work and training there gives them the opportunity to experience the value and challenges of continuity of care. In a study of Delva et al. trainees valued the efficiency gained by knowing patients and they felt rewarded of being recognized by patients (35). Also supplementary methods can be used in a GP/FM training setting; Sternlieb (2012) showed how a 1-year program with a once-a-month case conference format on long-term healing relationship can help a GP/FM trainee in managing the many health issues a patient might present over time (36).
Relating to both students and GP/FM trainees the importance of exposure to good GP/FM role models must be emphasized. Part of being a good role model often implies storytelling about patients that actually made a difference for the storyteller. Saultz (2016) highlights the importance of storytelling and stresses that meaningful doctor-patient relationships are built on shared experiences (37). Therefore, we must allow such experiences to happen. Moreover, sharing such real stories is seen as an important stimulus for recruitment to GP/FM specialty (37). But how to learn to tell stories? Ventres and Gross (2016) give a very detailed recipe for learning to become a storyteller in GP/FM (38).
Cooperation in Care
In an aging society where the number of patients with multimorbidity is rising, the number of health professionals around one patient is often more than one. This increases the risk of fragmentation of care and lack of continuity of care, which is not only inconvenient for the patient, but also comes with risks. The transitions between primary and secondary care for example, are associated with an increased risk of medical errors (39). Effective interprofessional collaboration is important to provide effective person-centered care, across the care continuum. Integration of care should be realized at the micro- (clinical integration), meso- (professional and organizational integration), and macro- (system integration) level (40). In this manuscript, we will focus on the micro level: interprofessional collaboration in daily care around a patient.
Interprofessional collaboration is not easy. Professionals experience barriers around the awareness of one another's roles and competences, and around confidentiality, responsibility, and team building (41). Interprofessional education can contribute to better interprofessional collaboration and patient outcomes (42).
When designing interprofessional education the following can be taken into account: involving patients in the design and delivery, providing a holistic focus, focusing on practical actions, deploying multi-modal learning formats and activities, evaluating formative and summative aspects, and encouraging team-based working (43).
There are interesting examples of interprofessional education in a community setting, where students from various health professions and social care experience the value of interprofessional collaboration (44–47).
Within a primary care health center often GPs/FDs will collaborate with nurses. Although learning with and about each other is judged as important, this is not often happening unless someone in the practice is taking the lead in facilitating this (48). The same counts for interprofessional learning between nurses and GP/FM trainees (48). There are enough chances to learn at the workplace while working together, but time for reflection should be created (49). Special effort is needed like in an example of interprofessional education around frail elderly in primary care, where GPs/FDs redefined division of tasks and responsibilities (50).
Collaboration between primary and secondary care doctors is called intraprofessional collaboration. Trainees in both primary and secondary care need to develop competencies to let patients feel that care and information transfer between the medical specialist and the primary care doctors show consistency (51). It is not easy to make primary and secondary trainees meet each other, due to difference in workplace with travel distance and busy rotations. In a project where they met in a digital way, GP trainees could consult internal medicine trainees about patients. This proved to be a rich learning opportunity (52). Also, the moments that primary care trainees have their hospital placement, can be used to learn to collaborate intraprofessionally (53).
Community-Oriented Care
Community orientation is a concept introduced into GP/FM in order to describe the responsibility of the discipline not only for the individual patient, but also for the community. It implies that the GP/FD needs to be aware of the environment in which he/she practices and to take action in that respect, because community involvement is necessary for the benefit of patients. Future doctors must therefore be aware of the theoretical concepts of public health and participate in some community-based activities, most frequently in health promotion and disease prevention. The concept is strongly promoted by the WHO (54) and involves introducing some concepts of public health into the discipline of GP/FM.
Teaching programs are often based on complex principles of community oriented primary care, developed for the purpose of the course and adapted to the specificities of GP/FM (55, 56). Typically, teaching methods include a theoretical introduction to principles of public health (57), combined with placing the learners in local communities where they participate in the work of a community health center (58). While learning in the community, learners quite often have to perform specific tasks (59). In a lot of these courses the practical part involves participation in regular activities within the community, usually disease prevention and health promotion (60).
Evaluation of these activities shows that the satisfaction with these placements by the students can be very positive, because students value active participation in the community (61), but there are also examples where students are not so satisfied with them mainly due to problems in logistics and because they do not see the relevance of the subject they have to participate in (62). The proper organization of these placements and adequate preparation for the practical tasks seems the key factors of success.
Discussion
Currently, a European movement towards a new GP/FM definition is going on. In this new definition, new core values will also be included. With this narrative review we were looking for educational practices that address those “candidate” GP/FM core values. Therefore, we selected four core values: person-centered care, continuity of care, cooperation in care, and community-oriented care.
Medical education oriented to GP/FM can be offered on three levels, namely the undergraduate level (or BME, Basic Medical Education), the postgraduate level (or ST, Specialty training), and the GPs/FDs' education (or CME, Continuing Medical Education). All three levels contribute to a strong and trained GP/FM workforce. If we expect, in this changing society, an updated GP/FM definition and related core values, GP/FM teaching and training should be adapted accordingly.
Leaning toward professionalism and humanism, core values do ask for a specific approach toward learning and teaching. Although teaching principles and recommendations are described in literature on medical education in general (63, 64), no consensus on the most effective approach is reached yet (63, 65). Branch describes a combined methods model, including theory as well as practice which are interrelated (65). More in detail, aspects as deliberate practice, experimental learning, feedback and reflection, support by peers in small groups, a longitudinal cohesive program, and a culture of interest in and support for the student are used (66). This is in line with those educational practices in GP/FM that were found and discussed in this review, related to all four core values.
We observed that GP/FM education toward the core values is often built around overarching topics like dementia, multimorbidity, prevention and health promotion, migration, etc. Teaching and learning takes place in specific contexts, most of all through placements within communities, primary care settings, or hospital wards. Mixed teaching- and learning methods are used that combine knowledge building, practicing skills, and a focus on attitude. Moreover, collaboration is stressed as well as with other health professionals as with peers, providing small but safe learning environments. When developing GP/FM education around core values it is also very interesting to be aware of the importance of role models, to keep a holistic focus in mind and to involve patients, both in the design of the training and within the training itself.
We noticed that our search yielded more articles on the core values themselves, rather than on the educational aspects and learning tools. A possible explanation is the fact that we are talking about a young field of teaching. Recognition of GP/FM as a “specialty” among the others just started in the 1960s and 1970s but is still ongoing in some countries around the world (67, 68). Consequently, this is certainly true for the tradition of offering GP/FM education in the medical schools. Even today, it can be a struggle to give GP/FM education sufficient attention, to have it recognized, and to have sufficient and capable GP/FM staff in separate GP/FM departments within the medical institutions (67). So logically, as GP/FM is a rather young discipline with a young field of teaching, it is also a young field of research both on GP/FM itself and on GP/FM teaching. Besides, we have to be aware that there will be a lot of good practices that have not been written about.
That brings us to our recommendations for the future. We should encourage each other more to share good practices, certainly the innovative ones specifically related to GP/FM. Moreover, GP/FM teachers and trainers could evaluate and investigate what works and what does not and (try to) publish this research. If we want to raise GP/FM and GP/FM education to the highest standards, this is essential. This is not an easy job: GP/FM is a specialism with great complexity, GP/FM doctors often have to combine their research activities with ongoing teaching activities and patient care, there often is a lack of direct benefits for research. Therefore, we need to focus on solutions such as collaboration in academic GP/FM departments, involvement of young researchers or students, time-efficiency and the believe that sharing ideas has mutual benefits (69). Most (GP/FM-oriented) medical educational journals have special formats to shortly report on good practices, however, original research articles are needed too.
With this narrative review we wanted to set an example to give guidelines concerning GP/FM education towards core values. By the way, inspiring, stimulating, and empowering each other is something we know as GPs/FDs from our patient care. Let us apply that to our teacher community as well.
We acknowledge some limitations of this narrative review. At the moment of preparing the manuscript a new European-wide approved GP/FM definition is not available yet, neither are clear and defined core values. Therefore, we relied on two regional initiatives, namely the Dutch and the Scandinavian ones (12, 13). Furthermore, as we performed a narrative review, not all research related to this topic is discussed. We aimed to find some good practices and overall views around core values and GP/FM education, so our search was not systematically performed, following a certain search strategy (14, 15).
In conclusion, this narrative review showed that some good practices on education regarding the core values for GP/FM have already been described in literature. Most of all, a mix of educational tools is used taking into account some essential principles as collaboration, using the clinical (primary care) context and role models, keeping holistic views, and involving patients. As such students, GP/FM trainees and GPs/FDs can achieve the essential knowledge, skills, and attitude to be a GP/FD which is orientated to the core values of their profession. This can be even more strengthened by inspiring each other and thus sharing innovative educational methods.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author Contributions
All authors fully contributed at the manuscript and finally approved it. All authors contributed to the design of the study, the literature search, and the writing.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We like to acknowledge all GP trainers, students and GP trainees for staying motivated to strengthen primary care by means of good GP/FM education.
References
1. WHO. Declaration of Alma-Ata. In: International Conference on Primary Health Care. Almaty (1978).
2. WHO European Region. From Alma-Ata to Astana: Primary Health Care – Reflecting on the Past, Transforming for the Future. Astana (2018).
3. Allen J, Gay B, Crebolder H, Heyrman J, Svab I, Ram P. The European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine, Revision 2011. Barcelona: WHO (2011).
4. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications. Off J Eur Union. (2005) 255/22.
5. Michels N, Maagaard R, Scherpbier-de Haan N. Educational Training Requirements for GP/FM Specialist Training - A EURACT/WONCA Guideline. EURACT/WONCA (2018).
6. Michels NRM, Maagaard R, Buchanan J, Scherpbier N. Educational training requirements for general practice/family medicine specialty training: recommendations for trainees, trainers and training institutions. Educ Prim Care. (2018) 29:322–6. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2018.1517391
8. Drury RL. The evolution of family medicine: a focused review. Arch Commun Fam Med. (2018) 1:51–4.
9. Topol EJ. A decade of digital medicine innovation. Sci Transl Med. (2019) 11:eaaw7610. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw7610
10. Emanuel EJ. Artificial intelligence in health care. Will the value match the hype? JAMA. (2019) 321:2281–2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4914
11. Hood L, Auffray C. Participatory medicine: a driving force for revolutionizing healthcare. Genome Med. (2013) 5:110. doi: 10.1186/gm514
12. van der Horst H, Bont J, Broeders E, Buis S, van Dijk M, Jaspar G, et al. Toekomst Huisartsenzorg. Herijking Kernwaarden en Kerntaken. (2019).
13. Nordic Federation of General Practice. Core values and principles of nordic general practice/family medicine. Scand J Prim Health Care. (2020) 38:367–8. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1842674
14. Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med Writ. (2015) 24:230–5. doi: 10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329
15. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiroprac Med. (2006) 5:101–17. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
16. American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-centered care: a definition and essential elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. (2016) 64:15–8. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13866
18. Wilm S. Assessment of General Practitioners' Performance in Daily Practice: The EURACT Performance Agenda of General Practice/Family Medicine. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press (2014).
19. Coulter A, Oldham J. Person-centred care: what is it and how do we get there? Fut Hosp J. (2016) 3:114–6. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-114
20. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. (2018) 21:429–40. doi: 10.1111/hex.12640
21. Louw JM, Marcus TS, Hugo JFM. Patient- or person-centred practice in medicine? - A review of concepts. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. (2017) 9:e1–e7. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1455
22. Edwards R, Voss SE, Iliffe S. The development and evaluation of an educational intervention for primary care promoting person-centred responses to dementia. Dementia (London). (2015) 14:468–82. doi: 10.1177/1471301213499768
23. Sass C, Burnley N, Drury M, Oyebode J, Surr C. Factors associated with successful dementia education for practitioners in primary care: an in-depth case study. BMC Med Educ. (2019) 19:393. doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1833-2
24. Corbett TK, Cummings A, Lee K, Calman L, Fenerty V, Farrington N, et al. Planning and optimising CHAT&PLAN: a conversation-based intervention to promote person-centred care for older people living with multimorbidity. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15:e0240516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240516
25. Klemenc Ketiš Z, Švab I. Using movies in family medicine teaching: a reference to EURACT educational agenda. Zdr Varst. (2017) 56:99–106. doi: 10.1515/sjph-2017-0013
26. Lionis C, Petelos E, Mechili EA, Sifaki-Pistolla D, Chatzea VE, Angelaki A, et al. Assessing refugee healthcare needs in Europe and implementing educational interventions in primary care: a focus on methods. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. (2018) 18:11. doi: 10.1186/s12914-018-0150-x
27. Law M, Kwong W, Friesen F, Veinot P, Ng SL. The current landscape of television and movies in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. (2015) 4:218–24. doi: 10.1007/s40037-015-0205-9
28. Maini A, Saravanan Y, Singh TA, Fyfe M. Coaching skills for medical education in a VUCA world. Med Teach. (2020) 42:1308–9. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1788713
29. Hoffmann-Longtin K, Rossing JP, Weinstein E. Twelve tips for using applied improvisation in medical education. Med Teach. (2018) 40:351–6. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1387239
30. Kaper MS, Winter AF, Bevilacqua R, Giammarchi C, McCusker A, Sixsmith J, et al. Positive outcomes of a comprehensive health literacy communication training for health professionals in three European countries: a multi-centre pre-post intervention study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:3923. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203923
31. Willoughby KA, Rodríguez C, Boillat M, Dove M, Nugus P, Steinert Y, et al. Assessing students' perceptions of the effects of a new Canadian longitudinal pre-clerkship family medicine experience. Educ Prim Care. (2016) 27:180–7. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2016.1172033
32. Gillies J. Compassion, medical humanities and medical education. Educ Prim Care. (2018) 29:68–70. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2018.1427004
33. Vest BM, Lynch A, McGuigan D, Servoss T, Zinnerstrom K, Symons AB. Using standardized patient encounters to teach longitudinal continuity of care in a family medicine clerkship. BMC Med Educ. (2016) 16:208. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0733-y
34. Preci C, Bonfatti M, Garuti C, Corbelli L, Romani A, Fiandri P, et al. Continuity of care and chronicity in medical students' education: 'adopt' a chronic patient. Educ Prim Care. (2020) 31:365–70. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2020.1811162
35. Delva D, Kerr J, Schultz K. Continuity of care: differing conceptions and values. Can Fam Physician. (2011) 57:915–21.
36. Sternlieb JL. Teaching the value of continuity of care: a case conference on long-term healing relationships. Fam Syst Health. (2012) 30:302–7. doi: 10.1037/a0030545
38. Ventres W, Gross P. Getting started: a call for storytelling in family medicine education. Fam Med. (2016) 48:682–7.
39. Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA. (2007) 297:831–41. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.8.831
40. Valentijn PP, Schepman SM, Opheij W, Bruijnzeels MA. Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int J Integr Care. (2013) 13:e010. doi: 10.5334/ijic.886
41. Supper I, Catala O, Lustman M, Chemla C, Bourgueil Y, Letrilliart L. Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. J. Public Health (Oxford, England). (2015) 37:716–27. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu102
42. Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME guide No. 39. Med Teach. (2016) 38:656–68. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173663
43. Miller R, Scherpbier N, van Amsterdam L, Guedes V, Pype P. Inter-professional education and primary care: EFPC position paper. Prim Health Care Res Dev. (2019) 20:e138. doi: 10.1017/S1463423619000653
44. Bridges DR, Davidson RA, Odegard PS, Maki IV, Tomkowiak J. Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education. Med Educ Online. (2011) 16:10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035
45. Mangan C, Miller R, Ward C. Knowing me, knowing you: inter-professional working between general practice and social care. J Integr Care. (2015) 23:62–73. doi: 10.1108/JICA-02-2015-0010
46. Anderson ES, Smith R, Thorpe LN. Learning from lives together: medical and social work students' experiences of learning from people with disabilities in the community. Health Soc Care Commun. (2010) 18:229–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00921.x
47. Young GJ, Cohen MJ, Blanchfield BB, Jones MM, Reidy PA, Weinstein AR. Assessing Interprofessional education in a student-faculty collaborative practice network. Educ Prim Care. (2017) 28:223–31. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2017.1298406
48. van der Gulden R, Haan NDS, Greijn CM, Looman N, Tromp F, Dielissen PW. Interprofessional education and collaboration between general practitioner trainees and practice nurses in providing chronic care; a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. (2020) 20:290. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02206-1
49. Mertens F, de Groot E, Meijer L, Wens J, Gemma Cherry M, Deveugele M, et al. Workplace learning through collaboration in primary healthcare: a BEME realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances: BEME Guide No. 46. Med Teach. (2018) 40:117–34. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1390216
50. Oeseburg B, Hilberts R, Luten TA, van Etten AV, Slaets JP, Roodbol PF. Interprofessional education in primary care for the elderly: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ. (2013) 13:161. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-161
51. Janssen M, Fluit C, Sagasser MH, Kusters LHJ, Scherpbier-de Haan ND, de Graaf J. Competencies for collaboration between general practitioners and medical specialists: a qualitative study of the patient perspective. BMJ Open. (2020) 10:e037043. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037043
52. Janssen M, Sagasser MH, Laro EAM, de Graaf J, Scherpbier-de Haan ND. Learning intraprofessional collaboration by participating in a consultation programme: what and how did primary and secondary care trainees learn? BMC Med Educ. (2017) 17:125. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0961-9
53. Looman N, Fluit C, van Wijngaarden M, de Groot E, Dielissen P, van Asselt D, et al. Chances for learning intraprofessional collaboration between residents in hospitals. Med Educ. (2020) 54:1109–19. doi: 10.1111/medu.14279
55. Clithero A, Ross S, Middleton L, Reeve C, Neusy A. Improving community health using an outcome-oriented CQI approach to community-engaged health professions education. Front Public Health. (2017) 5:26. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00026
56. Herrmann W, Gehrke-Beck S, Heintze C. Experiencing and designing community-based medicine - development and evaluation of an elective based on explorative learning. GMS J Med Educ. (2019) 36:Doc74. doi: 10.3205/zma001282
57. Fornari A, Anderson M, Simon S, Korin E, Swiderski D, Strelnick A. Learning social medicine in the Bronx: an orientation for primary care residents. Teach Learn Med. (2011) 23:85–9. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2011.536898
58. Smyrnakis E, Gavana M, Kondilis E, Giannakopoulos S, Panos A, Chainoglou A, et al. Primary health care and general practice attachment: establishing an undergraduate teaching network in rural Greek health centers. Rural Remote Health. (2013) 13:1946.
59. Wilder V, Gagnon M, Olatunbosun B, Adedokun O, Blanas D, Arniella G, et al. Community health needs assessment as a teaching tool in a family medicine residency. Fam Med. (2016) 48:635–7.
60. Park EW. Premedical students' experiences in community-oriented primary care. Korean J Med Educ. (2013) 25:229–37. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2013.25.3.229
61. Takamura A, Misaki H, Takemura Y. Community and interns' perspectives on community-participatory medical education: from passive to active participation. Fam Med. (2017) 49:507–13.
62. Ossai EN, Azuogu BN, Uwakwe KA, Anyanwagu UC, Ibiok NC, Ekeke N. Are medical students satisfied with rural community posting? A survey among final year students in medical schools of south-east Nigeria. Rural Remote Health. (2016) 16:3632. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0781-3
63. Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D. Teaching professionalism in medical education: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25. Med Teach. (2013) 35:e1252–66. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.789132
64. Cohen LG, Sherif YA. Twelve tips on teaching and learning humanism in medical education. Med Teach. (2014) 36:680–4. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.916779
65. Branch WT. Teaching professional and humanistic values: suggestion for a practical and theoretical model. Patient Educ Couns. (2015) 98:162–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.10.022
66. Kilty C, Wiese A, Bergin C, Flood P, Fu N, Horgan M, et al. A national stakeholder consensus study of challenges and priorities for clinical learning environments in postgraduate medical education. BMC Med Educ. (2017) 17:226. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1065-2
67. Gray SDP. The discipline of general practice: recognition and teaching. Br J Gen Pract. (2018) 68:212–3. doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X695837
68. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. (2005) 83:457–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
Keywords: general practice, family medicine, core values, medical education, person-centered care, continuity of care, cooperation in care, community-oriented care
Citation: Michels NRM, Maagaard R, Švab I and Scherpbier N (2021) Teaching and Learning Core Values in General Practice/Family Medicine: A Narrative Review. Front. Med. 8:647223. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.647223
Received: 29 December 2020; Accepted: 08 April 2021;
Published: 11 May 2021.
Edited by:
Rob Dijkstra, Self-Employed, Amsterdam, NetherlandsReviewed by:
Harm Van Marwijk, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, United KingdomRobert Drury, Canary Systems, United States
Copyright © 2021 Michels, Maagaard, Švab and Scherpbier. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nele R. M. Michels, bmVsZS5taWNoZWxzJiN4MDAwNDA7dWFudHdlcnBlbi5iZQ==