Comparison of performance in a four year graduate entry medical programme and a traditional five/six year programme

BMC Medical Education

Seamus Sreenan²  Tom Farrell²  Richard Arnett¹  Annette T Byrne² 

[1] Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Quality Enhancement Office, 123 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland;Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Graduate Entry Programme, Reservoir House, Ballymoss Road, Dublin 18, Ireland

关键词: Graduate entry medicine outcomes;   

Others  :  1090025
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-014-0248-3

 received in 2014-03-10, accepted in 2014-11-07,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In 2006 the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, (RCSI), introduced the first four year Graduate Entry Programme (GEP) in medicine in Ireland in line with national policy to broaden access to medical education. One concern considered at the time, was whether the GEP students could be trained to the same standard as their undergraduate Direct Entry Programme (DEP, five/six year duration) counterparts in the shorter time frame. Since students from both cohorts undertake the same examinations in the final two years, it is possible to directly compare GEP vs DEP outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to analyse the comparative performance of GEP and DEP students undergoing these examinations between 2008 and 2013.

Methods

Scores from five assessments performed during the final two years were transformed to z scores for each student and 4 scores for the penultimate year were summed to create a unit weighted composite score. The resultant scores for each of the two years were used to assess the comparative performance of GEP vs DEP cohorts and to perform sub-cohort analyses of GEP outcomes.

Results

In all cohorts/years examined, evidence demonstrated significantly better assessment outcomes for the GEP group for the final two years’ examinations as compared with the DEP group. In all but one cohort examined, this advantage was retained when nationality factors were excluded. Further analyses showed no difference in outcomes between GEP students having science vs. non-science backgrounds and/or between those from EU vs non-EU backgrounds. Finally, data suggested weak correlations between total composite scores and entry scores in American (r = 0.15) and Australian (r = 0.08) medical school admissions tests.

Conclusions

We have shown for the first time in Ireland, that graduate-entry students perform at least as well, or even better, than a corresponding undergraduate-entry group. Moreover, having a scientific background on entry to the GEP confers no advantage in final assessments. These data provide evidence of the viability of the graduate entry route into medical education in Ireland.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Byrne et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rosenthal R: Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. 2nd edition. SAGE, Newbury Park, CA; 1991.
• [2]Prideaux D, Teubner J, Sefton A, Field M, Gordon J, Price D: The Consortium of Graduate Medical Schools in Australia: formal and informal collaboration in medical education. Med Educ 2000, 34(6):449-454.
• [3]Powis D, Hamilton J, Gordon J: Are graduate entry programmes the answer to recruiting and selecting tomorrow’s doctors? Med Educ 2004, 38(11):1147-1153.
• [4]Miflin B, Harris P, Donald K, Bore P, Parker M, Groves M, Hardie I: Graduate entry to medical studies: thoughts fron ‘down under’. Med Teach 2003, 25(2):109-111.
• [5]Elliott SL, Epstein J: Selecting the future doctors: the role of graduate medical programmes. Intern Med J 2005, 35(3):174-177.
• [6]Reid KJ, Dodds AE, McColl GJ: Clinical assessment performance of graduate- and undergraduate-entry medical students. Med Teach 2012, 34(2):168-171.
• [7]Rolfe IE, Ringland C, Pearson SA: Graduate entry to medical school? Testing some assumptions. Med Educ 2004, 38(7):778-786.
• [8]Wilkinson D, Casey MG, Eley DS: Removing the interview for medical school selection is associated with gender bias among enrolled students. Med J Aust 2014, 200(2):96-99.
• [9]Dodds AE, Reid KJ, Conn JJ, Elliott SL, McColl GJ: Comparing the academic performance of graduate- and undergraduate-entry medical students. Med Educ 2010, 44(2):197-204.
• [10]Calvert MJ, Ross NM, Freemantle N, Xu Y, Zvauya R, Parle JV: Examination performance of graduate entry medical students compared with mainstream students. J R Soc Med 2009, 102(10):425-430.
• [11]Manning G, Garrud P: Comparative attainment of 5-year undergraduate and 4-year graduate entry medical students moving into foundation training. BMC Med Educ 2009, 9:76. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Shehmar M, Haldane T, Price-Forbes A, Macdougall C, Fraser I, Peterson S, Peile E: Comparing the performance of graduate-entry and school-leaver medical students. Med Educ 2010, 44(7):699-705.
• [13]Craig PL, Gordon JJ, Clark RM, Langendyk V: Prior academic background and student performance in assessment in a graduate entry programme. Med Educ 2004, 38(11):1164-1168.
• [14]Koenig JA: Comparison of medical school performances and career plans of students with broad and with science-focused premedical preparation. Acad Med 1992, 67(3):191-196.
• [15]Smith SR: Effect of undergraduate college major on performance in medical school. Acad Med 1998, 73(9):1006-1008.