The academic underperformance of medical students from ethnic minorities

This thesis presents a series of quantitative and qualitative studies, conducted with UCL Medical School students, which aimed to answer the following research question “which factors influence the differential performance of ethnic minority and white medical students in undergraduate assessments?” The first study explored the reliability and magnitude of the ethnic gap in attainment in Years 1, 2 and 3 of UCL Medical School. Results showed that within Years the gap was reliable over time, and that it was greatest in Year 3. The second study used a questionnaire to examine whether demographic and psychological factors might mediate the statistical relationship between ethnic group and academic performance in Years 1 and 3. Results showed that whilst ethnic minority and white students did differ on a number of factors, this could not explain the entire ethnic gap in attainment. The third study used qualitative interview methods to explore how Year 3 medical students and clinical teachers perceived the factors affecting learning and teaching in the clinical environment, including ethnic group. Results showed that some clinical teachers and students held negative stereotypical views about Asian medical students. Three hypothesised mechanisms for how stereotyping might negatively affect Asian students’ performance in examinations were generated. The fourth study experimentally investigated the effects of a social intervention designed to minimise some of the hypothesised negative effects of stereotyping and narrow the ethnic gap in attainment. Results showed that the intervention did narrow the gap as predicted, but unexpectedly this was due to changed performance in the white rather than the ethnic minority group. These results are discussed in terms of the complexities of research involving ethnicity and the multi-factorial nature of the influences on learning at medical school

Ethnicity and academic performance in UK trained doctors and medical students: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To determine whether the ethnicity of UK trained doctors and medical students is related to their academic performance

Even one star at A level could be "too little, too late" for medical student selection

Background: More and more medical school applicants in England and Wales are gaining the maximum grade at A level of AAA, and the UK Government has now agreed to pilot the introduction of a new A* grade. This study assessed the likely utility of additional grades of A* or of A**.Methods: Statistical analysis of university selection data collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), consisting of data from 1,484,650 applicants to UCAS for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, of whom 23,628 were medical school applicants, and of these 14,510 were medical school entrants from the UK, aged under 21, and with three or four A level results. The main outcome measure was the number of points scored by applicants in their best three A level subjects.Results: Censored normal distributions showed a good fit to the data using maximum likelihood modelling. If it were the case that A* grades had already been introduced, then at present about 11% of medical school applicants and 18% of entrants would achieve the maximum score of 3 A*s. Projections for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 suggest that about 26%, 35% and 46% of medical school entrants would have 3 A* grades.Conclusion: Although A* grades at A level will help in medical student selection, within a decade, a third of medical students will gain maximum grades. While revising the A level system there is a strong argument, as proposed in the Tomlinson Report, for introducing an A** grade

Revalidation and quality assurance: the application of the MUSIQ framework in independent verification visits to healthcare organisations

Objectives We present a national evaluation of the impact of independent verification visits (IVVs) performed by National Health Service (NHS) England as part of quality assuring medical revalidation. Organisational visits are central to NHS quality assurance. They are costly, yet little empirical research evidence exists concerning their impact, and what does exist is conflicting. Setting The focus was on healthcare providers in the NHS (in secondary care) and private sector across England, who were designated bodies (DBs). DBs are healthcare organisations that have a statutory responsibility, via the lead clinician, the responsible officer (RO), to implement medical revalidation. Participants All ROs who had undergone an IVV in England in 2014 and 2015 were invited to participate. 46 ROs were interviewed. Ethnographic data were gathered at 18 observations of the IVVs and 20 IVV post visit reports underwent documentary analysis. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcomes were the findings pertaining to the effectiveness of the IVV system in supporting the revalidation processes at the DBs. Secondary outcomes were methodological, relating to the Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ) and how its application to the IVV reveals the relevance of contextual factors described in the model. Results The impact of the IVVs varied by DB according to three major themes: the personal context of the RO; the organisational context of the DB; and the visit and its impact. ROs were largely satisfied with visits which raised the status of appraisal within their organisations. Inadequate or untimely feedback was associated with dissatisfaction. Conclusions Influencing teams whose prime responsibility is establishing processes and evaluating progress was crucial for internal quality improvement. Visits acted as a nudge, generating internal quality review, which was reinforced by visit teams with relevant expertise. Diverse team membership, knowledge transfer and timely feedback made visits more impactful

Fitness to practise sanctions in UK doctors are predicted by poor performance at MRCGP and MRCP(UK) assessments: data linkage study.

BACKGROUND: The predictive validity of postgraduate examinations, such as MRCGP and MRCP(UK) in the UK, is hard to assess, particularly for clinically relevant outcomes. The sanctions imposed on doctors by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC), including erasure from the Medical Register, are indicators of serious problems with fitness to practise (FtP) that threaten patient safety or wellbeing. This data linkage study combined data on GMC sanctions with data on postgraduate examination performance. METHODS: Examination results were obtained for UK registered doctors taking the MRCGP Applied Knowledge Test (AKT; n = 27,561) or Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA; n = 17,365) at first attempt between 2010 and 2016 or taking MRCP(UK) Part 1 (MCQ; n = 37,358), Part 2 (MCQ; n = 28,285) or Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills (PACES; n = 27,040) at first attempt between 2001 and 2016. Exam data were linked with GMC actions on a doctor's registration from September 2008 to January 2017, sanctions including Erasure, Suspension, Conditions on Practice, Undertakings or Warnings (ESCUW). Examination results were only considered at first attempts. Multiple logistic regression assessed the odds ratio for ESCUW in relation to examination results. Multiple imputation was used for structurally missing values. RESULTS: Doctors sanctioned by the GMC performed substantially less well on MRCGP and MRCP(UK), with a mean Cohen's d across the five exams of - 0.68. Doctors on the 2.5th percentile of exam performance were about 12 times more likely to have FtP problems than those on the 97.5th percentile. Knowledge assessments and clinical assessments were independent predictors of future sanctions, with clinical assessments predicting ESCUW significantly better. The log odds of an FtP sanction were linearly related to examination marks over the entire range of performance, additional performance increments lowering the risk of FtP sanctions at all performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: MRCGP and MRCP(UK) performance are valid predictors of professionally important outcomes that transcend simple knowledge or skills and the GMC puts under the headings of conduct and trust. Postgraduate examinations may predict FtP sanctions because the psychological processes involved in successfully studying, understanding and practising medicine at a high level share similar mechanisms to those underlying conduct and trust

The specialty choices of graduates from Brighton and Sussex Medical School: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND Since 2007 junior doctors in the UK have had to make major career decisions at a point when previously many had not yet chosen a specialty. This study examined when doctors in this new system make specialty choices, which factors influence choices, and whether doctors who choose a specialty they were interested in at medical school are more confident in their choice than those doctors whose interests change post-graduation. METHODS Two cohorts of students in their penultimate year at one medical school (n = 227/239) were asked which specialty interested them as a career. Two years later, 210/227 were sent a questionnaire measuring actual specialty chosen, confidence, influence of perceptions of the specialty and experiences on choice, satisfaction with medicine, personality, self-efficacy, and demographics. Medical school and post-graduation choices in the same category were deemed 'stable'. Predictors of stability, and of not having chosen a specialty, were calculated using bootstrapped logistic regression. Differences between specialties on questionnaire factors were analysed. RESULTS 50% responded (n = 105/277; 44% of the 239 Year 4 students). 65% specialty choices were 'stable'. Factors univariately associated with stability were specialty chosen, having enjoyed the specialty at medical school or since starting work, having first considered the specialty earlier. A regression found doctors who chose psychiatry were more likely to have changed choice than those who chose general practice. Confidence in the choice was not associated with stability. Those who chose general practice valued lifestyle factors. A psychiatry choice was associated with needing a job and using one's intellect to help others. The decision to choose surgical training tended to be made early. Not having applied for specialty training was associated with being lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness. CONCLUSION Medical school experiences are important in specialty choice but experiences post-graduation remain significant, particularly in some specialties (psychiatry in our sample). Career guidance is important at medical school and should be continued post-graduation, with senior clinicians supported in advising juniors. Careers advice in the first year post-graduation may be particularly important, especially for specialties which have difficulty recruiting or are poorly represented at medical school