Does basic physician trainee selection predict successful progression in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians adult medicine training programme? A retrospective cohort study

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jeffrey J. Post
{"title":"Does basic physician trainee selection predict successful progression in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians adult medicine training programme? A retrospective cohort study","authors":"Jeffrey J. Post","doi":"10.1111/imj.16507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The optimal selection process for basic physician trainees (BPTs) is unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To assess an adult BPT selection process, including a standardised recruitment interview assessing clinical decision-making and situational judgement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective multi-year cohort study of applicants who were selected for interview during the annual recruitment for 2011–2015 clinical years in an adult basic physician training network in NSW. The predictive capacity of the final recruitment assessment score was compared with success in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) adult medicine clinical examination within 2 years.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Four hundred thirty-six applicants were selected for interview (84–91 in each year). Summary mean post-interview scores ranged from 1.25 to 10, with the median ranging between 7 and 8. Median scores were higher in those who passed the examination than those who did not (7.75 vs 6.43, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.0001). Those who did not sit for the examination in the relevant year or never sat for the examination had similar median scores (7 vs 6.75, <i>P</i> = 0.11). Those not deemed eligible for recruitment were less likely to pass the clinical examination within 2 years than those on the eligibility list (odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25–0.57). Applicants with mean scores lower than 8 were less likely to pass than those in the top band (8.1–10); scores between 6.1 and 8 OR 0.42 (95% CI = 0.26–0.68), 4.1–6 OR 0.23 (95% CI = 0.13–0.41) and 2.1–4 OR 0.24 (95% CI = 0.10–0.60).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion(s)</h3>\n \n <p>The predictive capacity of the selection process for success in the RACP clinical examination within the minimum time period is high.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":"54 11","pages":"1809-1813"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imj.16507","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imj.16507","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The optimal selection process for basic physician trainees (BPTs) is unclear.

Aims

To assess an adult BPT selection process, including a standardised recruitment interview assessing clinical decision-making and situational judgement.

Methods

A retrospective multi-year cohort study of applicants who were selected for interview during the annual recruitment for 2011–2015 clinical years in an adult basic physician training network in NSW. The predictive capacity of the final recruitment assessment score was compared with success in the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) adult medicine clinical examination within 2 years.

Results

Four hundred thirty-six applicants were selected for interview (84–91 in each year). Summary mean post-interview scores ranged from 1.25 to 10, with the median ranging between 7 and 8. Median scores were higher in those who passed the examination than those who did not (7.75 vs 6.43, P < 0.0001). Those who did not sit for the examination in the relevant year or never sat for the examination had similar median scores (7 vs 6.75, P = 0.11). Those not deemed eligible for recruitment were less likely to pass the clinical examination within 2 years than those on the eligibility list (odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25–0.57). Applicants with mean scores lower than 8 were less likely to pass than those in the top band (8.1–10); scores between 6.1 and 8 OR 0.42 (95% CI = 0.26–0.68), 4.1–6 OR 0.23 (95% CI = 0.13–0.41) and 2.1–4 OR 0.24 (95% CI = 0.10–0.60).

Conclusion(s)

The predictive capacity of the selection process for success in the RACP clinical examination within the minimum time period is high.

基础医师培训学员的选择能否预测成人医学培训项目的成功进展?一项回顾性队列研究。
背景:目的:评估成人基础医师培训生的遴选流程,包括评估临床决策和情景判断的标准化招聘面试:方法:对新南威尔士州成人基础医师培训网络 2011-2015 临床年年度招聘中被选中参加面试的申请人进行回顾性多年队列研究。将最终招聘评估分数的预测能力与两年内通过澳大拉西亚皇家医学院(RACP)成人医学临床考试的情况进行了比较:共有 436 名申请人被选中参加面试(每年 84-91 人)。面试后的平均得分介于 1.25 分至 10 分之间,中位数介于 7 分至 8 分之间。通过考试者的中位数分数高于未通过考试者(7.75 对 6.43,P 结论(s)):遴选过程对在最短时间内成功通过 RACP 临床考试的预测能力很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信