Examiner perceptions of the MRCGP recorded consultation assessment for general practice licensing during COVID-19: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA) was developed rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic to replace the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) for UK general practice licensing. Our aim was to evaluate examiner perceptions of the RCA.

METHODS

We employed a cross-sectional design using a questionnaire survey of RCA examiners with attitudinal (relating to examiners thoughts and perceptions of the RCA) and free text response options. We conducted statistical descriptive and factor analysis of quantitative data with qualitative thematic analysis of free text responses.

RESULTS

Overall, 182 of 260 (70%) examiners completed the questionnaire. Responders felt that consultations submitted were representative of the work of a typical GP during the pandemic and provided a good sample across the curriculum. They were also generally positive about the logistic, advisory and other support provided as well as the digital platform. Despite responders generally agreeing there was sufficient information available in video or audio consultations to judge candidates' data gathering, clinical management, and interpersonal skills, they were less confident about their ability to make judgments of candidates' performance compared with the CSA. The qualitative analysis of free text responses detailed the problems of case selection and content, explained examiners' difficulties when making judgments, and detailed the generally positive views about support, training and information technology. Responders also provided helpful recommendations for improving the assessment.

CONCLUSION

The RCA was considered by examiners to be feasible and broadly acceptable, although they experienced challenges from candidate case selection, case content and judgments leading to suggested areas for improvement.

Candidate perceptions of the UK Recorded Consultation Assessment: cross-sectional data linkage study

The Recorded Consultation Assessment (RCA) was rapidly developed to replace the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) for UK general practice licencing during COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate candidate perceptions of the RCA and relationships with performance. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of RCA candidates with attitudinal, demographic, and free text response options, undertaking descriptive and factor analysis of quantitative data with qualitative thematic analysis of free text. Binomial regression was used to estimate associations between RCA pass, candidate characteristics and questionnaire responses.645 of 1551 (41.6%) candidates completed a questionnaire; 364 (56.4%) responders permitted linkage with performance and demographic data. Responders and non-responders were similar in exam performance, gender and declared disability but were significantly more likely to be UK graduates (UKG) or white compared with international medical (IMG) or ethnic minority graduates. Responders were positive about the digital platform and support resources. A small overall majority regarded the RCA as a fair assessment; a larger majority reported difficulty collecting, selecting, and submitting cases or felt rushed during recording.Logistic regression showed that ethnicity (white vs minority ethnic: odds ratio [OR] 2.99,95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23, 7.30, p = 0.016), training (UK vs IMG: OR 6.88, 95% CI 2.79, 16.95, p < 0.001), and English as first language (OR 5.11, 0% CI 2.08, 12.56, p < 0.001) were associated with exam success but questionnaire subscales, consultation type submitted, or extent of trainer review were not. The RCA was broadly acceptable but experiences were variable. Candidates experienced challenges and suggested areas for improvement.

Performance in candidates declaring versus those not declaring dyslexia in a licensing clinical examination

CONTEXT

High-stakes medical examinations seek to be fair to all candidates, including an increasing proportion of trainee doctors with specific learning differences. We aimed to investigate the performance of doctors declaring dyslexia in the clinical skills assessment (CSA), an objective structured clinical examination for licensing UK general practitioners.

METHODS

We employed a cross-sectional design using performance and attribute data from candidates taking the CSA between 2010 and 2017. We compared candidates who declared dyslexia ('early' before their first attempt or 'late' after failing at least once) with those who did not, using multivariable negative binomial regression investigating the effect of declaring dyslexia on passing the CSA, accounting for relevant factors previously associated with performance, including number of attempts, initial score, sex, place of primary medical qualification and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of 20 879 CSA candidates, 598 (2.9%) declared that they had dyslexia. Candidates declaring dyslexia were more likely to be male (47.3% versus 37.8%; p < 0.001) and to have a non-UK primary medical qualification (26.9% versus 22.4%; p < 0.01), but were no different in ethnicity compared with those who never declared dyslexia. Candidates who declared dyslexia late were significantly more likely to fail compared with those candidates who declared dyslexia early (40.6% versus 9.2%; p < 0.001) and were more likely to have a non-UK medical qualification (79.3% versus 15.6%; p < 0.001) or come from a minority ethnic group (84.9% versus 39.2%; p < 0.001). The chance of passing was lower for candidates declaring dyslexia compared to those who never declared dyslexia and lower in those declaring late (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.96) compared with those declaring early (IRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion of candidates declaring dyslexia were less likely to pass the CSA, particularly if dyslexia was declared late. Further investigation of potential causes and solutions is needed.

Can general practice trainees engage with leadership activities during their GP training placements? - An evaluation of an intervention in South East Scotland

Leadership is one of the GMC's Generic Professional Capabilities for all medical specialties, but engagement in leadership activities is not currently routinely built into general practice (GP) training. We explored whether GP trainees in their first year of speciality training (ST1) could engage with a leadership activity in their practice placement. GP trainees were invited to participate in a voluntary leadership activity, with a small menu of optional activities to choose from. Evaluation was through electronic survey of trainees and educational supervisors (ESs) before and after the GP placement, and through trainee focus groups after the placement. 89 trainees and 191 supervisors were surveyed at the start of the trial. Trainees felt supported by supervisors and practice team members. Both groups felt that leadership skills were important for a trainee's future career. Supervisors placed more emphasis on this than trainees. Identified barriers included lack of protected time, other training priorities, lack of empowerment, and personal issues. Most trainees and their supervisors felt that a leadership activity was possible during the first year of general practice training. More work needs to be done to see if these results are generalisable to trainees across demographic subgroups, and in other years of training.

Delight: a discourse upon the spiritual function of the psyche

Reflects upon a series of personal experiences of a numinous nature and how they impacted the author's traumatic childhood and led him into a life of healing as a physician.