Institution
General Medical Council
Government•London, United Kingdom•
About: General Medical Council is a government organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Health care & Public health. The organization has 69 authors who have published 111 publications receiving 1663 citations. The organization is also known as: GMC.
Topics: Health care, Public health, Specialty, Ethnic group, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The infrared absorption spectra of steroids, when compared with the specta of Authentic Specimens, provide a simple and complete means of identification, provided that the effects of polymorphism are precluded.
Abstract: The infrared absorption spectra of steroids, when compared with the spectra of Authentic Specimens, provide a simple and complete means of identification, provided that the effects of polymorphism are precluded. Of 35 substances examined, 16 showed no evidence of polymorphism and a further twelve were sufficiently soluble to be examined in solution. Specific solvent treatments, details of which are given, may be necessary with the remaining seven substances if the spectra of the sample and of the Authentic Specimen are not identical when first examined.
51 citations
••
TL;DR: Single‐best‐answer questions (SBAQs) have been widely used to test knowledge because they are easy to mark and demonstrate high reliability but have been criticised for being subject to cueing.
Abstract: CONTEXT: Single-best-answer questions (SBAQs) have been widely used to test knowledge because they are easy to mark and demonstrate high reliability. However, SBAQs have been criticised for being subject to cueing. OBJECTIVES: We used a novel assessment tool that facilitates efficient marking of open-ended very-short-answer questions (VSAQs). We compared VSAQs with SBAQs with regard to reliability, discrimination and student performance, and evaluated the acceptability of VSAQs. METHODS: Medical students were randomised to sit a 60-question assessment administered in either VSAQ and then SBAQ format (Group 1, n = 155) or the reverse (Group 2, n = 144). The VSAQs were delivered on a tablet; responses were computer-marked and subsequently reviewed by two examiners. The standard error of measurement (SEM) across the ability spectrum was estimated using item response theory. RESULTS: The review of machine-marked questions took an average of 1 minute, 36 seconds per question for all students. The VSAQs had high reliability (alpha: 0.91), a significantly lower SEM than the SBAQs (p < 0.001) and higher mean item-total point biserial correlations (p < 0.001). The VSAQ scores were significantly lower than the SBAQ scores (p < 0.001). The difference in scores between VSAQs and SBAQs was attenuated in Group 2. Although 80.4% of students found the VSAQs more difficult, 69.2% found them more authentic. CONCLUSIONS: The VSAQ format demonstrated high reliability and discrimination and items were perceived as more authentic. The SBAQ format was associated with significant cueing. The present results suggest the VSAQ format has a higher degree of validity.
50 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper describes the creation, structure and access arrangements for the first UK-wide attempt to create a research database, UKMED, to improve standards, facilitate workforce planning and support the regulation of medical education and training.
Abstract: Educating doctors is expensive and poor performance by future graduates can literally cost lives. Whilst the practice of medicine is highly evidence based, medical education is much less so. Research on medical school selection, undergraduate progression, Fitness to Practise (FtP) and postgraduate careers has been hampered across the globe by the challenges of uniting the data required. This paper describes the creation, structure and access arrangements for the first UK-wide attempt to do so. A collaborative approach has created a research database commencing with all entrants to UK medical schools in 2007 and 2008 (UKMED Phase 1). Here the content is outlined, governance arrangements considered, system access explained, and the potential implications of this new resource discussed. The data currently include achievements prior to medical school entry, admissions tests, graduation point information and also all subsequent data collected by the General Medical Council, including FtP, career progression, annual National Training Survey (NTS) responses, career choice and postgraduate exam performance data. UKMED has grown since the pilot phase with additional datasets; all subsequent years of students/trainees and stronger governance processes. The inclusion of future cohorts and additional information such as admissions scores or bespoke surveys or assessments is now being piloted. Thus, for instance, new scrutiny can be applied to selection techniques and the effectiveness of educational interventions. Data are available free of charge for approved studies from suitable research groups worldwide. It is anticipated that UKMED will continue on a rolling basis. This has the potential to radically change the volume and types of research that can be envisaged and, therefore, to improve standards, facilitate workforce planning and support the regulation of medical education and training. This paper aspires to encourage proposals to utilise this exciting resource.
47 citations
••
TL;DR: The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor’s practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills.
Abstract: The General Medical Council procedures to assess the performance of doctors who may be seriously deficient include peer review of the doctor's practice at the workplace and tests of competence and skills. Peer reviews are conducted by three trained assessors, two from the same speciality as the doctor being assessed, with one lay assessor. The doctor completes a portfolio to describe his/her training, experience, the circumstances of practice and self rate his/her competence and familiarity in dealing with the common problems of his/her own discipline. The assessment includes a review of the doctor's medical records; discussion of cases selected from these records; observation of consultations for clinicians, or of relevant activities in non-clinicians; a tour of the doctor's workplace; interviews with at least 12 third parties (five nominated by the doctor); and structured interviews with the doctor. The content and structure of the peer review are designed to assess the doctor against the standards defined in Good Medical Practice, as applied to the doctor's speciality. The assessment methods are based on validated instruments and gather 700-1000 judgements on each doctor. Early experience of the peer review visits has confirmed their feasibility and effectiveness.
47 citations
••
TL;DR: The paper makes some recommendations on practical steps which could help ensure that good quality information is available for work which benefits society and the public health, while still enabling patients’ autonomy to be respected.
Abstract: Doctors have an ethical and legal duty to respect patient confidentiality. We consider the basis for this duty, looking particularly at the meaning and value of autonomy in health care. Enabling patients to decide how information about them is disclosed is an important element in autonomy and helps patients engage as active partners in their care. Good quality data is, however, essential for research, education, public health monitoring, and for many other activities essential to provision of health care. We discuss whether it is necessary to choose between individual rights and the wider public interest and conclude that this should only rarely be necessary. The paper makes some recommendations on practical steps which could help ensure that good quality information is available for work which benefits society and the public health, while still enabling patients' autonomy to be respected.
45 citations
Authors
Showing all 70 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Sue Carr | 22 | 58 | 2592 |
Donald Irvine | 14 | 32 | 856 |
Daniel Smith | 7 | 9 | 131 |
Colin Melville | 6 | 19 | 89 |
Rachel Hurcombe | 5 | 7 | 116 |
Javier A. Caballero | 5 | 16 | 140 |
Jim Cox | 4 | 4 | 162 |
Graeme Catto | 4 | 8 | 42 |
Alan D Howes | 3 | 3 | 129 |
John Jenkins | 3 | 4 | 29 |
Sue Carr | 3 | 7 | 38 |
Philip Tombleson | 2 | 2 | 66 |
Peter Rubin | 2 | 3 | 15 |
Sue Roff | 2 | 2 | 48 |
Niall Dickson | 2 | 7 | 11 |