BackgroundAlthough shared decision making (SDM) is key to delivering patient-centred care, there are barriers to GPs implementing SDM in practice. SDM training is undergoing development by organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, GPs’ perceptions of the delivery of SDM training in general practice remain largely unexplored.AimTo explore GPs’ perceptions of teaching methods in SDM training.Design and settingQualitative study of GPs with teaching roles at the University of Exeter Medical School.MethodPurposive sampling recruited 14 GPs. Semi-structured interviews explored their SDM educational experiences. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.ResultsThree themes were identified. The GPs described role-play, receiving feedback, and on-the-job learning as modes of delivering SDM training that mostly informed their SDM in clinical practice positively. Learning from knowledgeable individuals and using realistic patient cases were perceived as beneficial components of SDM learning, although most learning occurred implicitly through reflections on their clinical experiences. The GPs identified that their training on SDM should reflect the uncertainty that is present when sharing decisions with patients in real-life general practice consultations. GPs also identified the targeting of individual GPs’ SDM learning needs and explanation of the potential benefits of SDM on consultation outcomes as important methods to facilitate the implementation of SDM in practice.ConclusionTo the authors’ knowledge, this is the first UK study to explore GPs’ perceptions of SDM training and provide recommendations for practice. As SDM occurs in partnership with patients, further research should obtain and incorporate patients’ views alongside those of GPs in the evaluation of future programmes.

INTRODUCTION: the decision-making process for students as to which medical schools to apply to is open to many factors and influences. Research has identified several factors which influence prospective students' choice of medical school and career. There is also evidence that websites and prospectuses may be creating potential barriers to widening access. METHODS: the websites and prospectuses of 33 medical schools in the United Kingdom were searched for relevant images. These images and the people in them were subjected to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data about the images and people were recorded so that a content analysis could be performed. The relative proportions were compared with pre-existing data relating to the medical profession and society. RESULTS: from 33 medical schools, 650 images were included, with 1,817 people depicted. The largest group for the assumed roles was 'student', as expected, with 1,423 people (78%). For the overall theme of the image, community placement themed images made up only 2% of images (14) and hospital placement themed images made up 24% (154). Chi-squared goodness of fit showed statistically significant results for most groups of data when comparing ethnicity, the overall theme of the image and assumed specialty group, but not when comparing gender. DISCUSSION: in conclusion, for gender, medical schools are accurately reflecting national data. However, for ethnicity medical schools fail to accurately represent national data, leading to incorrect signalling about the ethnic makeup of their students. Additionally, medical schools are signalling to students a strong preference for hospital-based settings, despite a strong national drive to recruit more general practitioners.