Issues relating to assessment Paul Buckley Director of Education

GMC and the Medical Act Undergraduate: S5: GMC shall ‘determine the standard of proficiency which is to be required from candidates at qualifying examinations and secure the maintenance of that standard’ S6: GMC may appoint inspectors to attend qualifying examinations Foundation: S10A: GMC may determine ‘assessment arrangements and the standards required for certification’ that an individual has completed training for PR doctors Specialty including GP training: S34H: GMC shall establish standards and requirements and secure their maintenance including ‘the assessment arrangements for persons undertaking education and training’ and ‘the examinations, assessments and other tests of competence to be completed’ S34I: GMC ‘may approve…examinations, assessments or other tests of competence’

GMC standards and requirements

Issues relating to assessment: context National Professional Examinations Learning and Assessment in the Clinical Environment Specialty assessment methods stock-take Undergraduate developments Assessment related initiatives 4

Background to National Professional Examinations On 8 July 2010, we issued a joint statement to reassure trainees that we will take a flexible and pragmatic approach to the timing of national professional examinations. In early 2011, we consulted on possible changes to the currency, timing and number of attempts of national professional examinations. 5

Next steps for National Professional Examinations The AoMRC proposed: Candidates will be allowed six attempts. They would have to demonstrate additional educational experience after six attempts. Passes will count for seven years with flexibility in individual cases. We have endorsed this approach and asked for a detailed plan. 6

Concerns about inappropriate use of WPBA tools eg Learning and Assessment in the Clinical Environment - origins Concerns about inappropriate use of WPBA tools eg Collins: ‘excessive, onerous and not valued’ Training surveys: concerns about lack of time, retrospective use Annual forums convened by AoMRC, COPMeD, GMC Cross-organisational group chaired by Dr John Jenkins

Supervised Learning Events (SLEs): Spread out Learning and Assessment in the Clinical Environment Supervised Learning Events (SLEs): Spread out Recorded in portfolio but not scored Assessments of Performance (AoPs): RCs to set minimum numbers of designated AoPs Consistent undergraduate approach important A discussion document: No immediate change to GMC standards Not requiring sudden or destabilising changes

Specialty assessment methods GMC commissioned a desk-top stock-take 47 assessment methods found Issues to consider: Whether variation properly reflects curricula or raises questions about fairness Clarity on how often assessment tools should be used Clarity on when WPBA formative or summative The scope for more consistent use of Decision Aids The scope for more use of level descriptors

Undergraduate developments Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009 Supplementary advice 2010 MSC initiatives: Collaborative content Prescribing Skills Assessment Improving Selection to the Foundation Programme GMC to take stock of undergraduate assessment methods GMC to evaluate impact of TD09 and reconsider case for a national examination

Related GMC initiatives Thematic review of assessment Comprehensive review of QA Fundamental review of standards Exploration of scope for generic outcomes Review of equivalence routes PLAB review Glossary 11

Issues relating to assessment: discuss Should there be more consistency across specialties? If so, how should it be achieved? Is it helpful to distinguish between Supervised Learning Events (SLEs) and Assessments of Performance (AoPs)? How should we implement and build on that distinction? How can we ensure that assessments avoid unfair discrimination eg relating to ethnicity or disability? Is there too much assessment? If so, how can it be reduced without risk to patient safety? Do ARCPs, workplace assessments and College examinations fit together cogently and give a consistent picture of trainee competence? How can the GMC best regulate assessment?