The under-representation of racially minoritised doctors in academic general practice training: a retrospective analysis

Abstract

Background: General practice has one of the most diverse medical training programmes in terms of sex and ethnic background. However, this diversity of race and ethnicity is not reflected in academic GP careers, with just 17% (n = 81/473) of academic GPs being from racially minoritised groups, according to the Medical Schools Council. Aim: To determine whether GP academic clinical fellow (ACF) trainees from racially minoritised backgrounds are proportionally represented, compared with the non-academic training programme, using the annual GP ACF conference as a proxy. Design & setting: A retrospective analysis of conference programmes from national academic GP training conferences from 2018–2023 and demographic data obtained from Health Education England (HEE). Method: Using conference programmes and online searches, demographic information on conference speakers was obtained and a freedom of information request was made to HEE for the demographics of GP ACFs for corresponding years. This was compared with demographic data of GP trainees and academics. Results: On average, there were 40 speakers each year at the conference. White females (average 20.2 speakers each year) were the most well represented group, followed by White males (average 12.5), Asian females (average 3.3), Asian males (average 1.8), Black males (average 0.7), and Black females (average 0.3). HEE data from 2022 revealed that 27 (71.1%) of the 38 (excluding five who did not state their ethnicity) ACFs were White British. Conclusion: GP academia should be more representative of the non-academic GP training scheme. Work needs to be done to understand and overcome the structural barriers to recruiting from racially minoritised groups.

Keywords

• ethnicity
• inclusion
• academia
• general practice