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

Re-examining single-moment-in-time high-stakes examinations in specialist training: A critical narrative review

In this critical narrative review, we challenge the belief that single-moment-in-time high-stakes examinations (SMITHSEx) are an essential component of contemporary specialist training. We explore the arguments both for and against SMITHSEx, examine potential alternatives, and discuss the barriers to change.SMITHSEx are viewed as the "gold standard" assessment of competence but focus excessively on knowledge assessment rather than capturing essential competencies required for safe and competent workplace performance. Contrary to popular belief, regulatory bodies do not mandate SMITHSEx in specialist training. Though acting as significant drivers of learning and professional identity formation, these attributes are not exclusive to SMITHSEx.Skills such as crisis management, procedural skills, professionalism, communication, collaboration, lifelong learning, reflection on practice, and judgement are often overlooked by SMITHSEx. Their inherent design raises questions about the validity and objectivity of SMITHSEx as a measure of workplace competence. They have a detrimental impact on trainee well-being, contributing to burnout and differential attainment.Alternatives to SMITHSEx include continuous low-stakes assessments throughout training, ongoing evaluation of competence in the workplace, and competency-based medical education (CBME) concepts. These aim to provide a more comprehensive and context-specific assessment of trainees' competence while also improving trainee welfare.Specialist training colleges should evolve from exam providers to holistic education sources. Assessments should emphasise essential practical knowledge over trivia, align with clinical practice, aid learning, and be part of a diverse toolkit. Eliminating SMITHSEx from specialist training will foster a competency-based approach, benefiting future medical professionals' well-being and success.

The hidden costs of the intercollegiate membership of the Royal College of surgeons examinations: Can trainees afford it?

BACKGROUND

The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is a mandatory requirement for higher specialty surgical training in the UK. However, there is a significant economic impact on trainees which raises the question of whether the costs of this exam hinder surgical career progression. This study explores the burden of these exams on trainees.

METHODS

A 37-point questionnaire was distributed to all trainees who were preparing for or have sat MRCS examinations. Univariate analyses included the cost of the preparatory resources, extra hours worked to pay for these and the examinations, and the number of annual leave (AL) days taken to prepare. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to identify possible correlation between monetary expenditure and success rate.

RESULTS

On average, trainees (n ​= ​145) spent £332.54, worked 31.2 ​h in addition to their rostered hours, and used 5.8 AL days to prepare for MRCS Part A. For MRCS Part B/ENT, trainees spent on average £682.92, worked 41.7 extra hours, and used 5 AL days. Overall, the average trainee spent 5-9% of their salary and one-fifth of their AL allowance to prepare for the exams. There was a positive correlation between number of attempts and monetary expenditure on Part A preparation (r(109)=0.536, p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a considerable financial and social toll of the MRCS examination on trainees. Reducing this is crucial to tackle workforce challenges that include trainee retention and burnout. Further studies exploring study habits can help reform study budget policies to ease this pressure on trainees.

Establishing the predictive validity of the intercollegiate membership of the Royal Colleges of surgeons written examination: MRCS Part A

Successful completion of the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is mandatory for surgical trainees entering higher specialist training in the United Kingdom. Despite its international reputation, and the value placed on the examination in surgical training, there has been little evidence of its predictive validity until recently. In this review, we present a summary of findings of four recent Intercollegiate studies assessing the predictive validity of the MRCS Part A (written) examination. Data from all four studies showed statistically significant positive correlations between the MRCS Part A and other written examinations taken by surgical trainees over the course of their education. The studies summarised in this review provide compelling evidence for the predictive validity of this gatekeeping examination. This review will be of interest to trainees, training institutions and the Royal Colleges given the value placed on the examination by surgical training programmes.

Establishing the predictive validity of the intercollegiate membership of the Royal Colleges of surgeons written examination: MRCS part B

The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) is a high-stakes postgraduate examination taken by thousands of surgical trainees worldwide every year. The MRCS is a challenging assessment, highly regarded by surgical training programmes and valued as a gatekeeper to the surgical profession. The examination is taken at considerable personal, social and financial cost to surgical trainees, and failure has significant implications for career progression. Given the value placed on MRCS, it must be a reliable and valid assessment of the knowledge and skills of early-career surgeons. Our first article 'Establishing the Predictive Validity of the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons Written Examination: MRCS Part A' discussed the principles of assessment reliability and validity and outlined the mounting evidence supporting the predictive validity of the MRCS Part A (the multiple-choice questionnaire component of the examination). This, the second article in the series discusses six recently published studies investigating the predictive validity of the MRCS Part B (the clinical component of the examination). All national longitudinal cohort studies reviewed have demonstrated significant correlations between MRCS Part B and other assessments taken during the UK surgical training pathway, supporting the predictive validity of MRCS Part B. This review will be of interest to trainees, trainers and Royal Colleges given the value placed on the examination by surgical training programmes.

What are the concerns of second-degree medical students entering specialty OMFS training?

Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) applicants are faced with numerous challenges. Previous research has demonstrated that financial burden, length of OMFS training, and impact on personal life are cited as major drawbacks to pursuing the specialty, with trainees having concerns about the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations. The current study aimed to explore second-degree medical students' concerns about obtaining a specialty training post in OMFS. An online survey was distributed via social media to second-degree students across the United Kingdom and 106 responses were received. A lack of publications and lack of involvement in research (54%) as well as attaining accreditation with the Royal College of Surgeons (27%) were cited as the primary and secondary concerns in relation to securing a higher training post. Seventy-five per cent of respondents had no first-author publications, 93% expressed concerns about passing the MRCS examination, and 73% had more than 40 OMFS procedures within their logbook. Second-degree medical students reported having ample clinical and operative experience in OMFS. Their main concerns were about research and MRCS examinations. To alleviate these concerns, BAOMS could provide educational initiatives and dedicated mentorship programmes for second-degree students, and could adopt a collaborative approach with discussion with major postgraduate training stakeholders.

Core training and surgical opportunities: A UK-based analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The COVID-19 pandemic, the new Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme curriculum and the European Work Time Directive significantly reduced surgical exposure for trainees. This study analyzed the operative experience of Phase 1 trainees (CT1/ST1 vs. CT2/ST2) against the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) criterion of 120 procedures yearly.

METHODS

National survey research in October 2021. Study end-point was the completion of >4 weekly procedures, equivalent to 120 cases per year. Chi-square test and multivariate regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

205 participants from 5 Deaneries were included, 48.3% were CT1/ST1 and 51.7% were CT2/ST2. About 54.5% of year-1 and 50% of year-2 trainees were 28 30 years old, 55.6% and 50.9% were male, and 39.4% and 38.7% were White British. About 39.4% of CT1/ST1 and 22.6% of CT2/ST2 performed <4 weekly procedures (P = 0.01), with no difference in the "Observed" (P = 0.6) or "Assisted" (P = 0.3) number of cases. CT2/ST2 recorded more "ST-S" (p 0.04), "S-TU" (P = 0.03), and "Performed" (P = 0.02) operations. For CT1/ST1, older age (HR 2.4, 95% CI [1.1; 5.3], P = 0.02) and southern deaneries (HR 1.7, 95% CI [1.2; 2.4], P = 0.004) were independent factor for <4 weekly procedures. For CT2/ST2, northern regions were associated with more favorable training (HR 1.4, 95% CI [1.1; 1.7], P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Over one third of Phase 1 trainees do not meet the ARCP requirement of >120 procedures annually. Age and region of training are independent factors in the number of logbook cases.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

This research focuses on training opportunities for junior surgical residents across the United Kingdom. The degree and type of exposure to the operating theatre have a significant impact on the development of surgical competencies. These are undoubtedly related to patient outcomes, as the quality of care delivered to patients and relatives greatly relies on the training background of future consultant surgeons.

Differential attainment, socioeconomic factors and surgical training

INTRODUCTION

Differential attainment (DA) is the gap in levels of achievement between different groups; socioeconomic factors are thought to play a significant role in DA. The aim of this study was to review and assess the evidence for DA in early surgical training and to examine the potential influence of socioeconomic status.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the General Medical Council GMC for those taking Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations between 2016 and 2019 and core surgical training annual review of competency progression (ARCP) outcomes between 2017 and 2019. The index of multiple deprivation (IMD) was used as a measure of socioeconomic background. Trainees were then divided into deprivation quintiles (DQ1=most deprived, DQ5=least deprived). MRCS and ARCP outcomes were compared between DQ groups using 95% confidence intervals and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had significantly lower overall MRCS pass rates (DQ1=45.5%, DQ2=48.9% vs DQ4=59.6%, DQ5=61.5%, p<0.05) and 1st time pass rates (DQ1&2=46.6% vs DQ4&5=63.5%, p<0.001). Additionally, they had a significantly higher number of attempts required to pass MRCS (DQ 1&2=1.86 vs DQ 4&5=1.54, p<0.01). Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had a significantly greater proportion of unsatisfactory ARCP outcomes (DQ1&2=24.4% vs DQ 4&5=14.2%, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There is clear evidence of the influence of socioeconomic background on DA in early surgical training. However, the reasons for this are likely complex and more work is required to investigate this relationship.

A cross-sectional study examining MRCS performance by core surgical training location

BACKGROUND

In the UK, core surgical training (CST) is the first specialty experience that early-career surgeons receive but training differs significantly across CST deaneries. To identify the impact these differences have on trainee performance, we assessed whether success at the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations is associated with CST deanery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of UK trainees in CST who attempted MRCS between 2014 and 2020 (n = 1104). Chi-squared tests examined associations between locality and first-attempt MRCS performance. Multivariate logistic regression models identified the likelihood of MRCS success depending on CST deanery.

RESULTS

MRCS Part A and Part B pass rates were associated with CST deanery (p < 0.001 and p = 0.013, respectively). Candidates that trained in Thames Valley (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.52 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.00-6.42), North Central and East London (OR 2.37 [95% CI 1.04-5.40]) or South London (OR 2.36 [95% CI 1.09-5.10]) were each more than twice as likely to pass MRCS Part A at first attempt. Trainees from North Central and East London were more than ten times more likely to pass MRCS Part B at first attempt (OR 10.59 [95% CI 1.23-51.00]). However, 68% of candidates attempted Part A prior to CST and 48% attempted Part B before or during the first year of CST.

CONCLUSION

MRCS performance is associated with CST deanery; however, many candidates passed the exam with little or any CST experience suggesting that some deaneries attract high academic performers. MRCS performance is therefore not a suitable marker of CST training quality.

Does performance at the intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examination vary according to UK medical school and course type? A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The knowledge, skills and behaviours required of new UK medical graduates are the same but how these are achieved differs given medical schools vary in their mission, curricula and pedagogy. Medical school differences seem to influence performance on postgraduate assessments. To date, the relationship between medical schools, course types and performance at the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons examination (MRCS) has not been investigated. Understanding this relationship is vital to achieving alignment across undergraduate and postgraduate training, learning and assessment values.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective longitudinal cohort study of UK medical graduates who attempted MRCS Part A (n=9730) and MRCS Part B (n=4645) between 2007 and 2017, using individual-level linked sociodemographic and prior academic attainment data from the UK Medical Education Database.

METHODS

We studied MRCS performance across all UK medical schools and examined relationships between potential predictors and MRCS performance using χ2 analysis. Multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of MRCS success at first attempt.

RESULTS

MRCS pass rates differed significantly between individual medical schools (p<0.001) but not after adjusting for prior A-Level performance. Candidates from courses other than those described as problem-based learning (PBL) were 53% more likely to pass MRCS Part A (OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.25 to 1.87) and 54% more likely to pass Part B (OR 1.54 (1.05 to 2.25)) at first attempt after adjusting for prior academic performance. Attending a Standard-Entry 5-year medicine programme, having no prior degree and attending a Russell Group university were independent predictors of MRCS success in regression models (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant differences in MRCS performance between medical schools. However, this variation is largely due to individual factors such as academic ability, rather than medical school factors. This study also highlights group level attainment differences that warrant further investigation to ensure equity within medical training.

MRCS Performance by OMFS trainees: An update and call to action

Completion of the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is a prerequisite for completion of specialty surgical training in UK. The aim of this study was to compare MRCS performance of OMFS trainees to trainees in other specialities over the past 13 years. Differential attainment (DA) was noted in MRCS Part A (MCQ) pass rates. There was no statistically significant difference in MRCS Part B pass rates. The reasons for this DA are currently unknown and require further investigation. It has been suggested that this may be due at least in part to competing time, family and financial obligations which increase over time.

Does performance at medical school predict success at the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination? A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Identifying predictors of success in postgraduate examinations can help guide the career choices of medical students and may aid early identification of trainees requiring extra support to progress in specialty training. We assessed whether performance on the educational performance measurement (EPM) and situational judgement test (SJT) used for selection into foundation training predicted success at the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal, cohort study using data from the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk). UK medical graduates who had attempted Part A (n=2585) and Part B (n=755) of the MRCS between 2014 and 2017 were included. χ² and independent t-tests were used to examine the relationship between medical school performance and sociodemographic factors with first-attempt success at MRCS Part A and B. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify independent predictors of MRCS performance.

RESULTS

The odds of passing MRCS increased by 55% for Part A (OR 1.55 (95% CI 1.48 to 1.61)) and 23% for Part B (1.23 (1.14 to 1.32)) for every additional EPM decile point gained. For every point awarded for additional degrees in the EPM, candidates were 20% more likely to pass MRCS Part A (1.20 (1.13 to 1.29)) and 17% more likely to pass Part B (1.17 (1.04 to 1.33)). For every point awarded for publications in the EPM, candidates were 14% more likely to pass MRCS Part A (1.14 (1.01 to 1.28)). SJT score was not a statistically significant independent predictor of MRCS success.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the EPM's independent predictive power and found that medical school performance deciles are the most significant measure of predicting later success in the MRCS. These findings can be used by medical schools, training boards and workforce planners to inform evidence-based and contemporary selection and assessment strategies.

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.

A cross-sectional study examining the association between MRCS performance and surgeons receiving sanctions against their medical registration

BACKGROUND

Fitness to practice (FtP) investigations by the General Medical Council (GMC) safeguard patients and maintain the integrity of the medical profession. The likelihood of FtP sanctions is influenced by specialty and socio-demographic factors and can be predicted by performance at postgraduate examinations. This is the first study to characterise the prevalence of FtP sanctions in early-career surgeons and to examine the association with performance at the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination.

METHODS

All UK graduates who attempted MRCS between September 2007-January 2020 were matched to the GMC list of registered medical practitioners. Clinicians who had active FtP sanctions between 28th August 2018 and 28th August 2020 were identified. Data were anonymised by RCS England prior to analysis.

RESULTS

Of 11,660 candidates who attempted MRCS within the study period, only 31 (0.3%) had FtP sanctions between 2018 and 2020. Of these, 12 had active conditions on registration, seven had undertakings and 14 had warnings. There was no statistically significant difference in MRCS performance in either Parts A or B of the examination for those with and those free from FtP sanctions (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this, the largest study of MRCS candidates to date, the prevalence of active FtP sanctions in early-career surgeons was 0.3%, significantly lower than the prevalence of sanctions across more experienced UK surgeons (0.9%). These data highlight early-career surgeons as a low-risk group for disciplinary action and should reassure patients and medical professionals of the rarity of FtP sanctions.

Cutting edge selection: learning from high reliability organisations for virtual recruitment in surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

INTRODUCTION

National selection for higher surgical training (ST3+) recruitment in the UK is competitive. The process must prioritise patient safety while being credible, impartial and fair. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all face-to-face interviews were cancelled. Selection was based on a controversial isolated self-assessment score with no evidence checking taking place. From 2021, selection will take place entirely online. Although this has cost and time advantages, new challenges emerge.

METHODS

We review surgical selection as it transitions to an online format and suggest validated methods that could be adapted from High Reliability Organisations (HRO).

FINDINGS

Virtual selection methods include video interviewing, online examinations and aptitude testing. These tools have been used in business for many years, but their predictive value in surgery is largely unknown. In healthcare, the established online Multi-Specialty Recruitment Assessment (MSRA) examines generic professional capabilities. Its scope, however, is too limited to be used in isolation. Candidates and interviewers alike may have concerns about the technical aspects of virtual recruitment. The significance of human factors must not be overlooked in the online environment. Surgery can learn from HROs, such as aviation. Pilot and air traffic control selection is integral to ensuring safety. These organisations have already established digital selection methods for psychological aptitude, professional capabilities and manual dexterity.

CONCLUSION

National selection for higher surgical training (ST3+) can learn from HROs, using validated methods to prioritise patient safety while being acceptable to candidates, trainers and health service recruiters.

Performance at medical school selection correlates with success in Part A of the intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination

Medical schools in the UK typically use prior academic attainment and an admissions test (University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT), Biomedical Admissions Test (BMAT) or the Graduate Medical School Admissions Test (GAMSAT)) to help select applicants for interview. To justify their use, more information is needed about the predictive validity of these tests. Thus, we investigated the relationship between performance in admissions tests and the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination.The UKMED database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk) was used to access medical school selection data for all UK graduates who attempted MRCS Part A (n=11 570) and Part B (n=5690) between 2007 and 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of MRCS success. Pearson correlation coefficients examined the linear relationship between test scores and MRCS performance.Successful MRCS Part A candidates scored higher in A-Levels, UCAT, BMAT and GAMSAT (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed for MRCS Part B. All admissions tests were found to independently predict MRCS Part A performance after adjusting for prior academic attainment (A-Level performance) (p<0.05). Admission test scores demonstrated statistically significant correlations with MRCS Part A performance (p<0.001).The utility of admissions tests is clear with respect to helping medical schools select from large numbers of applicants for a limited number of places. Additionally, these tests appear to offer incremental value above A-Level performance alone. We expect this data to guide medical schools' use of admissions test scores in their selection process.

Factors Associated with Attrition and Performance Throughout Surgical Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Attrition within surgical training is a challenge. In the USA, attrition rates are as high as 20–26%. The factors predicting attrition are not well known. The aim of this systematic review is to identify factors that influence attrition or performance during surgical training.

Method

The review was performed in line with PRISMA guidelines and registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF). Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Pooled estimates were calculated using random effects meta-analyses in STATA version 15 (Stata Corp Ltd). A sensitivity analysis was performed including only multi-institutional studies.

Results

The searches identified 3486 articles, of which 31 were included, comprising 17,407 residents. Fifteen studies were based on multi-institutional data and 16 on single-institutional data. Twenty-nine of the studies are based on US residents. The pooled estimate for overall attrition was 17% (95% CI 14–20%). Women had a significantly higher pooled attrition than men (24% vs 16%, p < 0.001). Some studies reported Hispanic residents had a higher attrition rate than non-Hispanic residents. There was no increased risk of attrition with age, marital or parental status. Factors reported to affect performance were non-white ethnicity and faculty assessment of clinical performance. Childrearing was not associated with performance.

Conclusion

Female gender is associated with higher attrition in general surgical residency. Longitudinal studies of contemporary surgical cohorts are needed to investigate the complex multi-factorial reasons for failing to complete surgical residency.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00268-020-05844-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Virtual ARCP assessment and trainee feedback meetings: facilitating the best experience and practice

As a result of COVID-19, there has been an exponential increase in the use of remote technology for many local, regional and national meetings that would previously have been held on a face-to-face basis. Remote meetings have ensured that essential clinical, educational and strategic work can continue but it is not ‘business as usual’, although colleagues accept this form of communication as the new norm.

In medical education and assessment, the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) meetings and other formative educational meetings are being conducted remotely. This form of communication has some advantages but may also present possible barriers for feedback and development particularly for ‘trainees in difficulty’ when there are concerns about progression, and when an unsatisfactory outcome has been awarded. It is also worth remembering that there may be generational differences with the ease of use of virtual meeting platforms.

We present some of the important factors for optimising the panel of virtual ARCPs and discuss methods to improve feedback given remotely for trainees.

Prediction of success at UK Specialty Board Examinations using the mandatory postgraduate UK surgical examination

Background

While performance in other mandatory examinations taken at the beginning of a doctor's career are predictive of final training outcomes, the influence early postgraduate surgical examinations might have on success at Specialty Board Exams in the UK is currently unknown. The aim was to investigate whether performance at the mandatory Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination, and other variables, are predictive of success at the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS) examination, thus potentially identifying those who may benefit from early academic intervention.

Methods

Pearson correlation coefficients examined the linear relationship between both examinations and logistic regression analysis identified potential independent predictors of FRCS success. All UK medical graduates who attempted either section of FRCS (Sections 1 and 2) between 2012 and 2018 were included.

Results

First attempt pass rates for Sections 1 and 2 FRCS were 87.4 per cent (n = 854) and 91.8 per cent (n = 797) respectively. In logistic regression analysis, sex (male: odds ratio (OR) 2.32, 95 per cent c.i 1.43 to 3.76), age (less than 29 years at graduation: OR 3.22, 1.88 to 5.51), Part B MRCS attempts (1 attempt: OR 1.77, 1.08 to 3.00), Part A score (OR 1.14, 1.09 to 1.89) and Part B score (OR 1.06, 1.03 to 1.09) were independent predictors of Section 1 FRCS success. Predictors of Section 2 FRCS success were age (less than 29 years at graduation: OR 3.55, 2.00 to 6.39), Part A score (OR 1.06, 1.02 to 1.11) and Section 1 FRCS score (OR 1.13, 1.07 to 1.18).

Conclusion

Part A and B MRCS performance were independent predictors of FRCS success, providing further evidence to support the predictive validity of this mandatory postgraduate exam. However, future research must explore the reasons between the attainment gaps observed for different groups of doctors.

Evaluating the recruitment process into UK anaesthesia core training: a national data linkage study of doctors' performance at selection and subsequent postgraduate training

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To explore which factors increase the likelihood of being deemed appointable to core anaesthesia training in the UK and whether those factors subsequently predict performance in postgraduate training.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study linking UK medical specialty recruitment data with postgraduate educational performance, as measured by Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) outcomes. Data were available for 2782 trainee doctors recruited to anaesthesia core training from 2012 to 2016 with at least one subsequent ARCP outcome.

RESULTS

Both higher interview and shortlisting scores were independent and statistically significant (p≤0.001) predictors of more satisfactory ARCP outcomes, even after controlling for the influence of postgraduate exam failure. It was noted that a number of background variables (eg, age at application) were independently associated with the odds of being deemed appointable at recruitment. Of these, increasing age and experience were also negative predictors of subsequent ARCP rating. These influences became statistically non-significant once ARCP outcomes associated with exam failure were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictors of 'appointability' largely also predict subsequent performance in postgraduate training, as indicated by ARCP ratings. This provides evidence for the validity of the selection process. Our results also suggest that greater weight could be applied to shortlisting scores within the overall process of ranking applicants for posts.