Using recruitment and selection to build a primary care workforce for the future

Recruitment and selection are critical components of human resource management. They influence both the quantity and quality of the healthcare workforce. In this article, we use two different examples of primary care workers, General Practitioners in the UK and Community Health Workers in low- and middle- income countries, to illustrate how recruitment and selection are, and could be, used to enhance the primary care workforce in each setting. Both recruitment and selection can be costly, so when funding is limited, decisions on how to spend the human resources budget must be made. It could be argued that human resource management should focus on recruitment in a seller's market (an insufficient supply of applicants) and on selection in a buyer's market (sufficient applicants but concerns about their quality). We use this article to examine recruitment and selection in each type of market and highlight the interactions between these two human resource management decisions. Recruitment and selection, we argue, must be considered in both types of market; particularly in sectors where workers' labour impacts upon population health. We note the paucity of high-quality research in recruitment and selection for primary care and the need for rigorous study designs such as randomised trials.

Effect of sex on specialty training application outcomes: a longitudinal administrative data study of UK medical graduates

OBJECTIVES

To examine sex differences in the specialty training recruitment outcomes of UK medical graduates; and whether sex differences were explained by prior academic attainment and previous fitness to practise (FtP) declarations.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

SETTING

Administrative data on entrants to all UK medical schools from the UK Medical Education Database.

PARTICIPANTS

10 559 doctors (6 155; 58% female) who entered a UK medical school in 2007 or 2008 and were eligible to apply for specialty training by 2015.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Odds of application, offer and acceptance to any specialty training programme, and on to each of the nine largest training programmes, adjusting for sex, other demographics, prior academic attainment, FtP declaration and medical school.

RESULTS

Across all specialties, there were no sex differences in applications for specialty training, but women had increased odds of getting an offer (OR=1.40; 95% CI=1.25 to 1.57; p<0.001) and accepting one (OR=1.43; 95% CI=1.19 to 1.71; p<0.001). Seven of the nine largest specialties showed significant sex differences in applications, which remained after adjusting for other factors. In the adjusted models, Paediatrics (OR=1.57; 95% CI=1.01 to 2.46; p=0.046) and general practice (GP) (OR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46; p=0.017) were the only specialties to show sex differences in offers, both favouring women. GP alone showed sex differences in acceptances, with women being more likely to accept (OR=1.34; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.76; p=0.03). Doctors with an FtP declaration were slightly less likely to apply to specialty training overall (OR=0.84; 95% CI=0.71 to 1.00; p=0.048) and less likely to accept an offer to any programme (OR=0.71; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.98; p=0.036), after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex segregation between medical specialties is due to differential application, although research is needed to understand why men are less likely to be offered a place on to GP and Paediatrics training, and if offered GP are less likely to accept.

Would changing the selection process for GP trainees stem the workforce crisis? A cohort study using multiple-imputation and simulation

BACKGROUND

There is currently a shortage of qualified GPs in the UK and not all of the training posts available each year are filled. Changing the way in which GP trainees are selected could help increase the training post fill rate and the number of new entrants to the GP Register. The aim of this study was to model the impact of changing the selection process for GP training on the number of trainees obtaining GP Registration, either with or without extensions.

METHOD

This was a cohort study using UK applications for GP training in 2011-14. Application data were linked using GMC numbers to training outcome data where available, and imputed using multiple imputation where missing. The number of trainees appointed and GP Registrations within three and five years' full-time-equivalent were estimated for four different selection processes.

RESULTS

The cut scores used in the actual 2015 selection process makes it impossible to fill all training posts. Random selection is the worst option, but the difference between this and other processes modelled falls as more trainees are selected. There are large marginal effects on outcomes: those with the highest selection scores are more likely to obtain GP Registration than those with the lowest scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing the selection process alone would have a small impact on the number of GP Registrations; reducing/removing cut scores would have a much larger impact. This would also increase the number of trainees requiring extensions and being released from training which would have adverse consequences for the profession.