this thematic template30 with the unit of analysis by general practice. A deductive thematic approach was used to create the framework, revisiting the data for confirmation and for negative case analysis. The creation of the framework was informed further by the literature and the expertise of the research team.
Table 1: Interviewees categorised by role
Table 2: Interview topic guide for practice staff
Human research ethics approval was obtained from Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, project number CF11/3006 - 2011001694.
Data were collected from 44 participants using a topic guide developed for each respondent group. Table 2 contains an example. Interviews ranged from 20 to 60 minutes and were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Table 3 summarises the characteristics of each general practice unit of analysis.
The results are presented in two parts: first, the thematic analysis representing the thematic template and, second, the resulting framework for a rural academic general practice. Like many classifications, there is some overlap between themes.
Table 3: General practice characteristics summary
The three major themes were organisational, educational and research considerations. Under each major theme, several subthemes were identified. These major and subthemes are detailed in Table 4 with example quotes from the data. In describing and discussing the analysis below, italics are used to highlight subthemes.
For organisational considerations, there were six subthemes. Prominent were the values, vision and culture of each practice. Business and service considerations were not always seen to align with educational considerations, hence the degree to which a practice engaged in education was associated with the value that the practice attached to education in relation to business and service: '[Teaching and its requirements] takes you away from your core business which is basically earning a living and keeping the place on the rails.' (Supervisor S2 - single-learner practice).
The patient population and clinical services was an organisational consideration. Registrars and interns require a clinical load. The patient population of practices with a strong educational focus accepted learners as legitimate practitioners and clinical service delivery was structured to accommodate and utilize learners: 'Well, I don't actually see them as interns, they're doctors to me.' (Patient M3 - multi-level learner practice).
Staffing appeared as an organizational subtheme. For practices with little educational activity, existing staff absorbed education tasks. For practices with significant engagement in education, tasks were more likely to be allocated to staff designated and trained for the role: '[I] have just undertaken an educational coordinator role which is a new role that they have created.' (Staff member M2 - multi-level learner practice).
Physical infrastructure was a fundamental consideration in a practice's capacity to host learners. For example, 'I don't know if we have got the room. If we had the room, we would.' (Practice nurse S1 - single-learner practice). The practices with a strong learner presence had all undertaken infrastructure expansion specifically for hosting learners. Two had received government infrastructure grants for this purpose.
Funding streams for education was an important consideration for all practices: 'It's all to do with time and money; it's as simple as that.' (Supervisor S2 - single-learner practice). The greater the engagement in education the more significant the educational funding as an income stream for the practice. These practices were also more positive about the remuneration afforded by funding for education: 'I think funding's pretty good.' (Supervisor 1 M2 - multi-level learner practice). However, funding was piecemeal and from multiple sources: 'There is a funding stream which comes with them, it's different for all of them.' (Supervisor M3 - multi-level learner practice).
As practices increased their engagement with education, they developed the governance structu