Dataset Information

How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: To investigate how accurately doctors estimated their performance on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations.A cross-sectional survey design using a questionnaire method.University College London Medical School.524 medical doctors working in a range of clinical specialties between foundation year two and consultant level.Estimated and actual total scores on a knowledge test and Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).The pattern of results for OSCE performance differed from the results for knowledge test performance. The majority of doctors significantly underestimated their OSCE performance. Whereas estimated knowledge test performance differed between high and low performers. Those who did particularly well significantly underestimated their knowledge test performance (t (196)=-7.70, p<0.01) and those who did less well significantly overestimated (t (172)=6.09, p<0.01). There were also significant differences between estimated and/or actual performance by gender, ethnicity and region of Primary Medical Qualification.Doctors were more accurate in predicating their knowledge test performance than their OSCE performance. The association between estimated and actual knowledge test performance supports the established differences between high and low performers described in the behavioural sciences literature. This was not the case for the OSCE. The implications of the results to the revalidation process are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Mehdizadeh L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3918998 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study.

Mehdizadeh Leila L Sturrock Alison A Myers Gil G Khatib Yasmin Y Dacre Jane J

BMJ open 20140206 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate how accurately doctors estimated their performance on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional survey design using a questionnaire method.<h4>Setting</h4>University College London Medical School.<h4>Participants</h4>524 medical doctors working in a range of clinical specialties between foundation year two and consultant level.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Estimated and actual total scores on a knowledge ...[more]

PMID: 24503300

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite common assumptions that doctors are well placed to lead hospitals and healthcare organisations, the peer-reviewed literature contains little evidence on the performance of doctors in leadership roles in comparison with that of non-medical managers.ObjectivesTo determine whether there is an association between the leader's medical background and management performance in terms of organisational performance or patient outcomes.MethodsWe searched for peer-reviewed, English language studies using Medline, Embase and Emerald Management between 2005 and 2017. We included quantitative, qualitative and mixed method empirical studies on the performance of senior healthcare managers where participants were described as doctors or leaders and where comparative performance data were provided on non-medical leaders. Studies without full text available, or no organisational, leadership behaviour or patient measures, were excluded.ResultsThe search, conducted in Medline (n=3395), Embase (n=1913) and Emerald Management (n=454) databases, yielded 3926 entries. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies remained. Twelve studies found that there were positive differences between medical and non-medical leaders, and eight studies correlated those findings with hospital performance or patient outcomes. Six studies examined the composition of boards of directors; otherwise, there were few common areas of investigation. Five inter-related themes emerged from a narrative analysis: the impact of medical leadership on outcomes; doctors on boards; contribution of qualifications and experience; the medical leader as an individual or part of a team and doctors transitioning into the medical leadership role.Discussion and conclusionA modest body of evidence supports the importance of including doctors on organisational governing boards. Despite many published articles on the topic of whether hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors, there were few empirical studies that directly compared the performance of medical and non-medical managers. This is an under-researched area that requires further funding and focus.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether use of the Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board (PLAB) examination system used to grant registration for international medical graduates results in equivalent postgraduate medical performance, as evaluated at Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP), between UK based doctors who qualified overseas and those who obtained their primary medical qualification from UK universities.DesignObservational study linking ARCP outcome data from the UK deaneries with PLAB test performance and demographic data held by the UK General Medical Council (GMC).SettingDoctors in postgraduate training for a medical specialty or general practice in the UK and doctors obtaining GMC registration via the PLAB system.Participants53,436 UK based trainee doctors with at least one competency related ARCP outcome reported during the study period, of whom 42,017 were UK medical graduates and 11,419 were international medical graduates who were registered following a pass from the PLAB route.Main outcome measureProbability of obtaining a poorer versus a more satisfactory category of outcome at ARCP following successful registration as a doctor in the UK.ResultsInternational medical graduates were more likely to obtain a less satisfactory outcome at ARCP compared with UK graduates. This finding persisted even after adjustment for the potential influence of sex, age, years of UK based practice, and ethnicity and exclusion of outcomes associated with postgraduate examination failure (odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.06). However, international medical graduates who scored in the highest twelfth at part 1 of the PLAB (at least 32 points above the pass mark) had ARCP outcomes that did not differ significantly from those of UK graduates.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that the PLAB test used for registration of international medical graduates is not generally equivalent to the requirements for UK graduates. The differences in postgraduate performance, as captured at ARCP, following the two routes to registration might be levelled out by raising the standards of English language competency required as well as the pass marks for the two parts of the PLAB test. An alternative might be to introduce a different testing system.

Project description:ObjectivesTo find out how medical students think well-being should be measured.DesignA mixed-methods study comprising a cross-sectional online survey (November 2020-March 2021) and semi-structured online interviews. Views on the frequency of availability for measurement, the format, type and purpose of measurement, and with whom well-being should be discussed were measured. When an outcome was scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale of agreement by ≥75% of participants it was considered critical. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken on the interview transcripts.SettingAll medicine programmes at University of Southampton.ParticipantsMedical students from all years took part in the survey (n=118) and interviews (n=16).ResultsMost participants (94%) felt able to give 5 min to measure their well-being at least once per month. Research, governance and individual feedback were all considered critically important. Only subjective assessments undertaken by the individual in real-time were rated critically important (78.1%) measurement tools. Students selected that they would discuss their well-being with other medical students (n=87) nearly as often as they selected a member of the faculty (n=104). Five interview themes further explained these findings: (1) well-being is mental well-being; (2) exercise and support from friends and family are most important; (3) isolation and the design of the medicine programme are detrimental to well-being; (4) there are advantages to surveys, and conversations; (5) personal academic tutors and medical students in later years are the best to discuss well-being with.ConclusionsMedical students thought that measurement of their well-being was critically important for governance showing their support for quality assurance of well-being and peer support. They wanted to be able to choose surveys, or conversations, to measure their well-being, as well as the person they discussed well-being with. Four recommendations are discussed in light of these findings.

Project description:ObjectiveWith regard to limitation in national budget, the relevant authorities of healthcare and treatment throughout the globe are seeking the use of available resources in a way that no wastage of money or time-which is, of course, convertible to money-is acceptable. This study sought the opinions of hospital doctors and nurses on those activities at work that wasted their time.MethodsA questionnaire designed to identify activities that waste time during hospital care was completed based on the review of previous studies and including hospital wastes items. The authors designed a questionnaire, which was filled out by 209 nurses and 30 doctors in the surgery wards in hospitals affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS). The items for time wasting activities were extracted from previous studies, and the reliability of the questionnaire was more than 0.785 using Cronbach's alpha. The response rate was more than 60%.ResultsThe mean age of the participating nurses and doctors was 30.24 ± 6.85 and 32.77 ± 7.05 years. In all aspects, more time was wasted during the morning and evening shifts in comparison with the night shifts. The activity that was thought to waste time in hospital care the most was paper-based documentation. Preventable wasted time during the shift was 16%-30% in the nurses' view and 18%-34% in the doctors' view. For both nurses and doctors, the highest-rated preventable wasted time was related to time spent waiting in ward for lab data responses, transfer of patients, or delivery of care.ConclusionHospital working environment is complex, and opportunities for improvement of the efficiency of the nurses' and doctors' workload should be analyzed, case by case, in each hospital and work group. Process change (for the decrease in the wasted time for waiting in wards), simple innovative ways (for the decrease in the wasted time for searching the needed equipment), using hospital information system technology for documentation, communication, and the better design of the wards (to decrease the wasted time due to transfer between the ward and restroom) could be helpful for improving efficiency and for a safer and acceptable delivery of care.

Project description:BackgroundThe transition from medical student to junior doctor in postgraduate training is a critical stage in career progression. We report junior doctors' views about the extent to which their medical school prepared them for their work in clinical practice.MethodsPostal questionnaires were used to survey the medical graduates of 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2005, from all UK medical schools, one year after graduation, and graduates of 2000, 2002 and 2005 three years after graduation. Summary statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression were used to analyse the results. The main outcome measure was the level of agreement that medical school had prepared the responder well for work.ResultsResponse rate was 63.7% (11610/18216) in year one and 60.2% (8427/13997) in year three. One year after graduation, 36.3% (95% CI: 34.6, 38.0) of 1999/2000 graduates, 50.3% (48.5, 52.2) of 2002 graduates, and 58.2% (56.5, 59.9) of 2005 graduates agreed their medical school had prepared them well. Conversely, in year three agreement fell from 48.9% (47.1, 50.7) to 38.0% (36.0, 40.0) to 28.0% (26.2, 29.7). Combining cohorts at year one, percentages who agreed that they had been well prepared ranged from 82% (95% CI: 79-87) at the medical school with the highest level of agreement to 30% (25-35) at the lowest. At year three the range was 70% to 27%. Ethnicity and sex were partial predictors of doctors' level of agreement; following adjustment for them, substantial differences between schools remained. In years one and three, 30% and 34% of doctors specified that feeling unprepared had been a serious or medium-sized problem for them (only 3% in each year regarded it as serious).ConclusionsThe vast knowledge base of clinical practice makes full preparation impossible. Our statement about feeling prepared is simple yet discriminating and identified some substantial differences between medical schools. Medical schools need feedback from graduates about elements of training that could be improved.

Dataset Information

How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study.

Publications

How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets