Understanding the language of the curriculum
The specific capabilities in the RCGP curriculum are broken down into more specific domains and learning outcomes (detailed items of knowledge and skill). These map directly to the GMC’s generic professional capabilities, which apply to all medical specialty training programmes. They describe the knowledge, skills and behaviours that should be demonstrated by a GP on completion of training. Relevant progression point descriptors and MRCGP assessments are shown for each of the core capabilities.
When the term ‘appropriate’ is used to describe an action, this means one that is evidence-based, safe, cost-effective and in keeping with clinical judgement as well as the patient’s situation and preferences.
| Level of complexity | Description | Verbs used in the curriculum learning outcomes |
|---|---|---|
| Recall or respond | The ability to recall previously presented information and/or comply with a given expectation | Accept, define, describe, follow, record |
| Comprehend | The ability to grasp the meaning of information in a defined context | Acknowledge, appreciate, clarify, identify, recognise |
| Apply | The ability to use rules and principles to apply knowledge in a defined context and/or display behaviour consistent with an expected belief or attitude | Adopt, apply, communicate, contribute, demonstrate, implement, measure, obtain, participate, use |
| Evaluate | The ability to analyse and judge information for a defined purpose and/or justify decisions or a course of action | Analyse, appraise, compare, differentiate, discuss, evaluate, explore, interpret, justify, monitor, reflect on, review |
| Integrate | The ability to bring information together to demonstrate a deeper understanding and/or demonstrate behaviour consistent with the internalisation of professional values | Advocate, challenge, commit to, create, deliver, develop, enhance, facilitate, integrate, lead, manage, organise, plan, prioritise, promote, provide, respect, tailor, value |
Table 3: Taxonomy of terms used in the RCGP curriculum learning outcomes1
Decolonising the RCGP curriculum
In line with other educational and professional organisations, the RCGP has been undertaking a process of decolonising the curriculum. Our working definition of the term ‘decolonising’ is ‘a process of addressing the colonial legacies that persist within modern medical education, and better understanding how the historical inclusion and exclusion of some knowledge and its producers has shaped the profession we work in’.
We have begun to critically reflect on the origins and formation of our knowledge, how this is taught in primary care and how it might create unhelpful power hierarchies. Can these be reframed and reconstructed in the curriculum?
In collaboration with experts and our stakeholders, we have tried to integrate these principles into the curriculum to promote inclusivity in GP education and practice.
This process was started by asking the following questions:
- Does the language of the curriculum create any barriers to understanding and learning general practice? Have we provided sufficient representation in terms of identity, language and case examples?
- Does the curriculum content sufficiently reflect diversity in modern UK general practice, and is it appropriate in terms of its breadth? Are there any potential controversies or omissions?
- Are we still using appropriate and relevant references and authorities for our knowledge sources? Do they help us improve cultural humility and reduce hierarchies?
- Does the curriculum sufficiently support a learner-centred and values-based approach to professional development?
- Do we sufficiently recognise the influence of prior experience and practices from within other healthcare systems on international graduates now working in the NHS?
This is still an ongoing process, and we acknowledge that there will be areas for improvement.
References
- Modified from principles in Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (eds). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.