The impact of disability on recruitment to higher surgical specialty training: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: UK examining bodies are required to eliminate discrimination against people with protected characteristics. To achieve this in surgery, differential attainment (DA) in assessments used as gatekeepers to career progression must be ruled out. This study investigated the impact of disability status on the likelihood of success at national selection for Higher Surgical Training (HST). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all UK graduates in the UKMED database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk) who underwent selection for HST (ST3) from 2012 to 2019 (n = 2875). Univariate analysis identified differences in success rates at first-application. Logistic regression models identified whether disability was a predictor of success after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and prior MRCS performance. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in success rates between candidates with and without disabilities (all p > 0.05) for any surgical specialty. Disability status was not a statistically significant predictor of success. Female candidates were 25 % more likely to be successful (OR 1.25 [95%CI 1.05 to 1.49]) and Non-White candidates were 20 % less likely to be successful (OR 0.80 [95%CI 0.68 to 0.96]). Candidates who passed MRCS Part A and Part B at the first attempt were 49 % (OR 1.49 [95%CI 1.25 to 1.77]) and 90 % (OR 1.90 [95%CI 1.58 to 2.28]) more likely to be successful. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found in the likelihood of being successful at HST selection for any surgical specialty between applicants with and without disabilities, regardless of type of disability. DA was identified between other sociodemographic groups which requires further exploration.

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.

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.

Differential attainment at MRCS according to gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic factors: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: A recent independent review on diversity and inclusivity highlighted concerns that barriers to surgical career progression exist for some groups of individuals and not others. Group-level differences in performance at the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations have been identified but are yet to be investigated. We aimed to characterise the relationship between sociodemographic differences and performance at MRCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: All UK MRCS candidates attempting Part A (n = 5780) and Part B (n = 2600) between 2013 and 2019 with linked sociodemographic data in the UK Medical Education Database (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Chi-square tests established univariate associations with MRCS performance. Multiple logistic regression identified independent predictors of success, adjusted for medical school performance. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in MRCS pass rates were found according to gender, ethnicity, age, graduate status, educational background and socioeconomic status (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for prior academic attainment, being male (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-2.92) or a non-graduate (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44-2.74) were independent predictors of MRCS Part A success and being a non-graduate (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.15-2.71) and having attended a fee-paying school (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08-2.10) were independent predictors of Part B success. Black and minority ethnic groups were significantly less likely to pass MRCS Part B at their first attempt (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.92 for Black candidates and OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.69 for Asian candidates) compared to White candidates. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant group-level differential attainment at MRCS, likely to represent the accumulation of privilege and disadvantage experienced by individuals throughout their education and training. Those leading surgical education now have a responsibility to identify and address the causes of these attainment differences.