The impact of disability on performance in a high-stakes postgraduate surgical examination: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite rising numbers of doctors in the workforce with disabilities, little is known about the impact of disabilities on postgraduate performance. To ensure all groups are treated fairly in surgical training, it is essential to know whether any attainment differences exist in markers of surgical performance. To address this gap, we assessed the impact of disabilities on performance on the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons examination (MRCS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: All UK MRCS candidates attempting Part A (n = 9600) and Part B (n = 4560) between 2007 and 2017 with linked disability data in the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Chi-square tests and correlation coefficients established univariate associations with MRCS performance, while multiple logistic regressions identified independent predictors of success. RESULTS: Though MRCS Part B pass rates were similar (p = 0.339), candidates with registered disabilities had significantly lower first-attempt Part A pass rates (46.3% vs. 59.8%, p < 0.001). Candidates with disabilities also performed less well in examinations taken throughout school and medical school, and after adjusting for prior academic performance and sociodemographic predictors of success, logistic regression found that candidates with disabilities were no less likely to pass MRCS than their peers (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.62). No significant variation was found in MRCS performance between type of disability or degree of limitations caused by disability (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although candidates with registered disabilities performed less well in formal, written examinations, our data indicate that they are as likely to pass MRCS at first attempt as their peers who achieved similar grades at high school and medical school. In order to enable equity in career progression, further work is needed to investigate the causes of attainment differences in early career assessments.

The effects of human factor related issues on assessors during the recruitment process for general and vascular surgery in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals increasingly recognise how human factors (HF) can contribute to medical error. An understanding of HF is also important during other high stakes activities such as summative assessments or examinations. National organisations hosting such events need to be aware of potential fatigue, boredom and stress that can occur in interviewers during these often repetitive activities. METHODS: A previously validated questionnaire based around the well known HF analysis and classification system (HFACS) was used to evaluate four factors (care and support, asking questions about the role as an interviewer, working within the rules and boundaries, and stress and pressure) at the 2018 UK general and vascular surgery trainee national selection process. RESULTS: A total of 92 questionnaires were completed and analysed (48% response rate). After recoding for negative phrased questions, no significant differences were found between years of experience in the selection process and mean scores obtained for all four factor items. Interviewers had a positive experience during national selection with mean factor scores ranging from 3.84 to 3.98 (out of a maximum satisfaction score of 5). CONCLUSIONS: Organisations need to plan carefully and recognise the human element to ensure that their interviewers are cared for during any high stakes assessment such as national selection. Our work suggests that a positive assessor experience will further help contribute to a reliable and fair recruitment process.

Does the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination predict 'on-the-job' performance during UK higher specialty surgical training?

INTRODUCTION: The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) is a mandatory examination to enter higher surgical specialty training in the UK. It is designed to help to ensure that successful candidates are competent to practice as higher surgical trainees. The annual review of competence progression (ARCP) assesses trainees' competence to progress to the next level of training and can be interpreted as a measure of 'on-the-job' performance. We investigated the relationship between MRCS performance and ARCP outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All UK medical graduates who passed MRCS (Parts A and B) from 2007 to 2016 were included. MRCS scores, attempts and sociodemographics for each candidate were crosslinked with ARCP outcomes (satisfactory, unsatisfactory and insufficient evidence). Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify potential independent predictors of ARCP outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2570 trainees underwent 11,064 ARCPs; 1589 (61.8%) had only satisfactory outcomes recorded throughout training; 510 (19.9%) had at least one unsatisfactory outcome; and 471 (18.3%) supplied insufficient evidence. After adjusting for age, gender, first language and Part A performance, ethnicity (non-white vs white, OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.71), Part B passing score (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00) and number of attempts at Part B (two or more attempts vs one attempt, OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.94) were found to be independent predictors of an unsatisfactory ARCP outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify predictors of ARCP outcomes during higher surgical specialty training in the UK and provides further evidence of the predictive validity of the MRCS examination.

Predictors of success in the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination.

Introduction The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS, Parts A and B) is designed to safeguard patients and ensure high standards for trainees wishing to pursue a surgical career. We investigated which factors predict Part A and B success. Methods UK graduates who had attempted both parts of MRCS from September 2007 to February 2016 were included. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the linear relationship between each part of MRCS and logistic regression analysis to identify potential independent predictors of MRCS pass/fail outcome. Results A positive correlation between Part A and B score was identified (r = 0.41, P < 0.01). In Part A, males had higher pass rates than females (odds ratio, OR, 2.78, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.83-4.19), white candidates were more likely to pass than black minority and ethnic doctors (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.52-1.89), foundation year 1 doctors had higher pass rates than all other grades (e.g. core surgical year 2 trainees vs. foundation year 1 doctors, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) and younger graduates were more likely to pass than older graduates (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81-3.63). In addition to ethnicity and stage of training, Part A performance (number of attempts and score) was an independent predictor for Part B. Conclusions Part A performance is related to Part B score. Many independent predictors of MRCS success were identified, but only stage of training and ethnicity were found to be common predictors of both parts. This article summarises the findings of our most recent MRCS study which was published in The Surgeon (online) in October 2017. 1.