Search

Background: Widening participation (WP) for underrepresented students through six-year gateway courses helps to widen the demographic representation of doctors in the UK. 'Most students from gateway courses graduate, even though many enter with lower grades than standard entry medicine students.' This study aims to compare the graduate outcomes of gateway and SEM cohorts from the same universities. Methods: Data from 2007–13 from the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) were available for graduates of gateway and SEM courses at three UK medical schools. Outcome measures were passing an entry exam on the first attempt, Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP) outcome and being offered a level one training position from the first application. The univariate analysis compared the two groups. Logistic regressions, predicting outcomes by course type, controlled for attainment on completion of medical school. Results: Four thousand four hundred forty-five doctors were included in the analysis. There was no difference found in the ARCP outcome between gateway and SEM graduates. Gateway graduates were less likely to pass their first attempt at any membership exam than graduates of SEM courses (39% vs 63%). Gateway graduates were less likely to be offered a level 1 training position on their first application (75% vs 82%). Graduates of gateway courses were more likely to apply to General Practitioner (GP) training programmes than SEM graduates (56% vs 39%). Conclusions: Gateway courses increase the diversity of backgrounds represented within the profession and importantly the number of applications to GP training. However, differences in cohort performance are shown to continue to exist in the postgraduate arena and further research is required to ascertain the reasons for this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The global rise in mental health issues calls for a strong psychiatry workforce. Yet, psychiatry training worldwide is facing recruitment challenges, causing unfilled consultant posts and possibly threatening the quality of patient care. An in-depth understanding of trainees’ progression through training is warranted to explore what happens to recruited trainees during training. Aims To uncover current trends in psychiatry trainees’ progression through training in the UK. Method This national retrospective cohort study with data from the UK Medical Education Database used discrete-time survival analysis to analyse training progression for those trainees who started their core psychiatry post in 2012–2017 (2820 trainees; 59.6% female, 67.6% UK graduates (UKGs)). The impact of sociodemographic characteristics on training progression were also investigated. Results The overall probability of completing training in 6 years (minimum years required to complete psychiatry training in the UK) was 17.2% (ranging from 4.8% for non-UKG females to 29% for UKG males). The probability to not progress was highest (57.1%) from core to specialty training. For UKGs, trainees from ethnicities other than White, trainees with a disability, and trainees who had experienced childhood social deprivation (measured as entitlement to free school meals) had a significantly (P ≤ 0.02) lower probability of completing training in 6 years. Conclusions Less than one in five psychiatry trainees are likely to complete training in 6 years and this probability varies across groups of doctors. Completing psychiatry training in 6 years is, therefore, the exception rather than the norm and this has important implications for trainees, those planning psychiatry workforces or responsible for psychiatry training.

Abstract Background Little research has compared the profile, success, or specialty destinations of graduates entering UK medical schools via accelerated, 4-yr, standard 5-yr and 6-yr programmes. Four research questions directed this investigation:-What are the success rates for graduates entering graduate-entry vs. undergraduate medicine courses?How does the sociodemographic and educational profile differ between these two groups?Is success – in medical school and foundation training – dependent on prior degree, demographic factors, or aptitude test performance at selection?What specialty do graduate entry medicine students subsequently enter? Methods The data from two cohorts of graduates entering medical school in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2761) in the UKMED (UK Medical Education Database) database were studied: 1445 taking 4-yr and 1150 taking 5-yr medicine courses, with smaller numbers following other programmes. Results Completion rates for degree programmes were high at 95%, with no significant difference between programme types. 4-yr entrants were older, less likely to be from Asian communities, had lower HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) tariff scores, but higher UKCAT (UK Clinical Aptitude Test) and GAMSAT (Graduate Medical School Admissions Test) scores, than 5-yr entrants. Higher GAMSAT scores, black or minority ethnicity (BME), and younger age were independent predictors of successful completion of medical school. Foundation Programme (FPAS) selection measures (EPM – educational performance measure; SJT – situational judgment test) were positively associated with female sex, but negatively with black or minority ethnicity. Higher aptitude test scores were associated with EPM and SJT, GAMSAT with EPM, UKCAT with SJT. Prior degree subject, class of degree, HESA tariff, and type of medicine programme were not related to success. Conclusions The type of medicine programme has little effect on graduate entrant completion, or EPM or SJT scores, despite differences in student profile. Aptitude test score has some predictive validity, as do sex, age and BME, but not prior degree subject or class. Further research is needed to disentangle the influences of BME.

Background: Gateway courses are increasingly popular widening participation routes into medicine. These six year courses provide a more accessible entry route into medical school and aim to support under-represented students' progress and graduation as doctors. There is little evidence on the performance of gateway students and this study compares attainment and aptitude on entry, and outcomes at graduation of students on the UK's three longest running gateway courses with students studying on a standard entry medical degree (SEMED) course at the same institutions. Methods: Data were obtained from the UK Medical Education Database for students starting between 2007 and 2012 at three UK institutions. These data included A-levels and Universities Clinical Aptitude Test scores on entry to medical school and the Educational Performance Measure (EPM) decile, Situational Judgement Test (SJT) and Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) scores as outcomes measures. Multiple regression models were used to test for difference in outcomes between the two types of course, controlling for attainment and aptitude on entry. Results: Four thounsand three hundred forty students were included in the analysis, 560 on gateway courses and 3785 on SEMED courses. Students on SEMED courses had higher attainment (Cohen's d = 1.338) and aptitude (Cohen's d = 1.078) on entry. On exit SEMED students had higher EPM scores (Cohen's d = 0.616) and PSA scores (Cohen's d = 0.653). When accounting for attainment and aptitude on entry course type is still a significant predictor of EPM and PSA, but the proportion of the variation in outcome explained by course type drops from 6.4 to 1.6% for EPM Decile and from 5.3% to less than 1% for the PSA score. There is a smaller significant difference in SJT scores, with SEMED having higher scores (Cohen's d = 0.114). However, when measures of performance on entry are accounted for, course type is no longer a significant predictor of SJT scores. Conclusions: This study shows the differences of the available measures between gateway students and SEMED students on entry to their medical degrees are greater than the differences on exit. This provides modest evidence that gateway courses allow students from under-represented groups to achieve greater academic potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global rise in mental health issues calls for a strong psychiatry workforce. Yet, psychiatry training worldwide is facing recruitment challenges, causing unfilled consultant posts and possibly threatening the quality of patient care. An in-depth understanding of trainees' progression through training is warranted to explore what happens to recruited trainees during training., Aims: To uncover current trends in psychiatry trainees' progression through training in the UK., Method: This national retrospective cohort study with data from the UK Medical Education Database used discrete-time survival analysis to analyse training progression for those trainees who started their core psychiatry post in 2012-2017 (2820 trainees; 59.6% female, 67.6% UK graduates (UKGs)). The impact of sociodemographic characteristics on training progression were also investigated., Results: The overall probability of completing training in 6 years (minimum years required to complete psychiatry training in the UK) was 17.2% (ranging from 4.8% for non-UKG females to 29% for UKG males). The probability to not progress was highest (57.1%) from core to specialty training. For UKGs, trainees from ethnicities other than White, trainees with a disability, and trainees who had experienced childhood social deprivation (measured as entitlement to free school meals) had a significantly (P ≤ 0.02) lower probability of completing training in 6 years., Conclusions: Less than one in five psychiatry trainees are likely to complete training in 6 years and this probability varies across groups of doctors. Completing psychiatry training in 6 years is, therefore, the exception rather than the norm and this has important implications for trainees, those planning psychiatry workforces or responsible for psychiatry training.

Introduction: Knowledge about the career decisions of doctors in relation to specialty (residency) training is essential in terms of UK workforce planning. However, little is known about which doctors elect to progress directly from Foundation Year 2 (F2) into core/specialty/general practice training and those who instead opt for an alternative next career step., Objective: To identify if there were any individual differences between these two groups of doctors., Design: This was a longitudinal, cohort study of 'home' students who graduated from UK medical schools between 2010 and 2015 and completed the Foundation Programme (FP) between 2012 and 2017.We used the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) to access linked data from different sources, including medical school performance, specialty training applications and career preferences. Multivariable regression analyses were used to predict the odds of taking time out of training based on various sociodemographic factors., Results: 18 380/38 905 (47.2%) of F2 doctors applied for, and accepted, a training post offer immediately after completing F2. The most common pattern for doctors taking time out of the training pathway after FP was to have a 1-year (7155: 38.8%) or a 2-year break (2605: 14.0%) from training. The odds of not proceeding directly into core or specialty training were higher for those who were male, white, entered medical school as (high) school leavers and whose parents were educated to degree level. Doctors from areas of low participation in higher education were significantly (0.001) more likely to proceed directly into core or specialty training., Conclusion: The results show that UK doctors from higher socioeconomic groups are less likely to choose to progress directly from the FP into specialty training. The data suggest that widening access and encouraging more socioeconomic diversity in our medical students may be helpful in terms of attracting F2s into core/specialty training posts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KW was formerly the Special Advisor (Recruitment) for the UK’s Foundation Programme (UKFPO)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Little research has compared the profile, success, or specialty destinations of graduates entering UK medical schools via accelerated, 4-yr, standard 5-yr and 6-yr programmes. Four research questions directed this investigation:- What are the success rates for graduates entering graduate-entry vs. undergraduate medicine courses? How does the sociodemographic and educational profile differ between these two groups? Is success – in medical school and foundation training – dependent on prior degree, demographic factors, or aptitude test performance at selection? What specialty do graduate entry medicine students subsequently enter? Methods: The data from two cohorts of graduates entering medical school in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2761) in the UKMED (UK Medical Education Database) database were studied: 1445 taking 4-yr and 1150 taking 5-yr medicine courses, with smaller numbers following other programmes. Results: Completion rates for degree programmes were high at 95%, with no significant difference between programme types. 4-yr entrants were older, less likely to be from Asian communities, had lower HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) tariff scores, but higher UKCAT (UK Clinical Aptitude Test) and GAMSAT (Graduate Medical School Admissions Test) scores, than 5-yr entrants. Higher GAMSAT scores, black or minority ethnicity (BME), and younger age were independent predictors of successful completion of medical school. Foundation Programme (FPAS) selection measures (EPM – educational performance measure; SJT – situational judgment test) were positively associated with female sex, but negatively with black or minority ethnicity. Higher aptitude test scores were associated with EPM and SJT, GAMSAT with EPM, UKCAT with SJT. Prior degree subject, class of degree, HESA tariff, and type of medicine programme were not related to success. Conclusions: The type of medicine programme has little effect on graduate entrant completion, or EPM or SJT scores, despite differences in student profile. Aptitude test score has some predictive validity, as do sex, age and BME, but not prior degree subject or class. Further research is needed to disentangle the influences of BME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]