Patients scored students' performance high compared with students' self-assessments. Teachers' scores were in accordance with patients' scores. Teachers' written evaluations of students were often general. There is a potential for improving teachers' feedback in terms of more specific and concrete comments.

ObjectivesPreviously, we identified a 10-year cohort of protocols from applications to the Norwegian Medicines Agency 1998–2007, consisting of 196 drug trials in general practice. The aim of this study was to examine whether trial results were published and whether trial funding and conflicts of interest were reported.DesignCohort study of trials with systematic searches for published results.SettingClinical drug trials in Norwegian general practice.MethodsWe performed systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify publications originating from each trial using characteristics such as test drug, comparator and patient groups as search terms. When no publication was identified, we contacted trial sponsors for information regarding trial completion and reference to any publications.Main outcome measuresWe determined the frequency of publication of trial results and trial characteristics associated with publication of results.ResultsOf the 196 trials, 5 were never started. Of the remaining 191 trials, 71% had results published in a journal, 11% had results publicly available elsewhere and 18% of trials had no results available. Publication was more common among trials with an active comparator drug (χ2 test, p=0.040), with a larger number of patients (total sample size≥median, p=0.010) and with a longer trial period (duration≥median, p=0.025). Trial funding was reported in 85% of publications and increased over time, as did reporting of conflicts of interest among authors. Among the 134 main journal articles from the trials, 60% presented statistically significant results for the investigational drug, and the conclusion of the article was favourable towards the test drug in 78% of papers.ConclusionsWe did not identify any journal publication of results for 29% of the general practice drug trials. Trials with an active comparator, larger and longer trials were more likely to be published.

ObjectiveFeedback may be scarce and unsystematic during students' clerkship periods. We wanted to explore general practitioners' (GPs) and medical students' experiences with giving and receiving supervision and feedback during a clerkship in general practice, with a focus on their experiences with using a structured tool (StudentPEP) to facilitate feedback and supervision.DesignQualitative study.SettingTeachers and students from a six-week clerkship in general practice for fifth year medical students were interviewed in two student and two teacher focus groups.Subjects21 GPs and nine medical students.ResultsWe found that GPs first supported students' development in the familiarization phase by exploring the students' expectations and competency level. When mutual trust had been established through the familiarization phase GPs encouraged students to conduct their own consultations while being available for supervision and feedback. Both students and GPs emphasized that good feedback promoting students' professional development was timely, constructive, supportive, and focused on ways to improve. Among the challenges GPs mentioned were giving feedback on behavioral issues such as body language and insensitive use of electronic devices during consultations or if the student was very insecure, passive, and reluctant to take action or lacked social or language skills. While some GPs experienced StudentPEP as time-consuming and unnecessary, others argued that the tool promoted feedback and learning through mandatory observations and structured questions.ConclusionMutual trust builds a learning environment in which supervision and feedback may be given during students' clerkship in general practice. Structured tools may promote feedback, reflection and learning. Key PointsObserving the teacher and being supervised are essential components of Medical students' learning during general practice clerkships.Teachers and students build mutual trust in the familiarization phase.Good feedback is based on observations, is timely, encouraging, and instructive.StudentPEP may create an arena for structured feedback and reflection.

Objective When the COVID-19 pandemic reached Norway, primary health care had to reorganize to ensure safe patient treatment and maintain infection control. General practitioners (GPs) are key health care providers in the municipalities. Our aim was to explore the experiences and management strategies of Norwegian GPs during the COVID-19 pandemic - over time, and in the context of a sudden organizational change. Design Longitudinal qualitative interview study with two interview rounds. The first round of interviews was conducted from September–December 2020, the second round from January–April 2021. In the first interview round, we performed eight semi-structured interviews with GPs from eight municipalities in Norway. In the second round, five of the GPs were re-interviewed. Consecutive interviews were performed 2–4 months apart. To analyze the data, we used thematic analysis. Results The COVID-19 pandemic required GPs to balance several concerns, such as continuity of care and their own professional efforts. Several GPs experienced challenges in the collaboration with the municipality and in relation to defining their own professional position. Guided by The Norwegian Association of General practitioners, The Norwegian College of General Practice and collegial support, they found viable solutions and ended up with a feeling of having adapted to a new normal. Conclusions Although our study demonstrates that the GPs adapted to the changing conditions, the current municipal health care models are not ideal. There is a need for clarification of responsibilities between GPs and the municipality to facilitate a more coordinated future pandemic response. Key Points Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary health care service in Norway had to reorganize to ensure safe patient treatment and maintain infection control. Several GPs experienced challenges in collaboration with the municipalities. There is a need for clarification of responsibilities between GPs and the municipality.

BackgroundDrugs predominantly prescribed in general practice should ideally be tested in that setting; however, little is known about drug trials in general practice. Our aim was to describe drug trials in Norwegian general practice over the period of a decade.MethodsThe present work concerns a 10-year retrospective study of protocols submitted to the Norwegian national medicines agency (1998 to 2007) identifying all studies involving general practitioners (GPs) as clinical investigator(s). We analyzed the number of trials, drug company involvement, patients, participating doctors, payment, medications tested and main diagnostic criteria for inclusion. We also analyzed one trial in greater detail.ResultsOut of 2,054 clinical drug trials, 196 (9.5%) were undertaken in general practice; 93% were multinational, 96% were industry funded and 77% included patients both from general practice and specialist care. The trials were planned to be completed in the period 1998 to 2012. A total of 23,000 patients in Norway and 340,000 patients internationally were planned to be included in the 196 trials. A median of 5 GPs participated in each trial (range 1 to 402). Only 0.7% of 831 GP investigators had general practice university affiliations. Median payment for participating investigators was €1,900 (range €0 to 13,500) per patient completing the trial. A total of 30 pharmaceutical companies were involved. The drugs most commonly studied were antidiabetics (21%), obstructive airway disease medications (12%), agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system (10%), and lipid modifying agents (10%). One trial, presented in more detail, had several characteristics of a seeding or marketing trial.ConclusionsOnly one in four drug trials involving general practice were solely general practice trials and almost all were industry initiated without input from academic general practice. There was a large variation in the number of patients, participating doctors, and economic compensation for trial investigators, with some investigators receiving substantial payments.