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 â€‹= â€‹145) spent £332.54, worked 31.2 â€‹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 â€‹< â€‹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.

Moving Beyond Words: Leveraging Financial Resources to Improve Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Academic Medical Centers.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts at academic medical centers (AMCs) began prior to 2020, but have been accelerated after the death of George Floyd, leading many AMCs to recommit their support for DEI. Institutions crafted statements to decry racism, but we assert that institutions must make a transparent, continuous, and robust financial investment to truly show their commitment to DEI. This financial investment should focus on (1) advocacy efforts for programs that will contribute to DEI in health, (2) pipeline programs to support and guide minoritized students to enter health professions, and (3) the recruitment and retention of minoritized faculty. While financial investments will not eliminate all DEI concerns within AMCs, investing significant financial resources consistently and intentionally will better position AMCs to truly advance diversity, equity, and inclusion within healthcare, the community, and beyond.