↓ Skip to main content

The GP tests of competence assessment: which part best predicts fitness to practise decisions?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The GP tests of competence assessment: which part best predicts fitness to practise decisions?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1111-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hirosha Keshani Jayaweera, Henry W. W. Potts, Karim Keshwani, Chris Valerio, Magdalen Baker, Leila Mehdizadeh, Alison Sturrock

Abstract

The General Medical Council (GMC) conducts Tests of Competence (ToC) for doctors referred for Fitness to Practise (FtP) issues. GPs take a single best answer knowledge test, an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and a Simulated Surgery (SimSurg) assessment which is a simulated GP consultation. The aim of this study was to examine the similarities between OSCEs and SimSurg to determine whether each assessment contributed something unique to GP ToCs. A mixed methods approach was used. Data were collated on 153 GPs who were required to undertake a ToC as a part of being investigated for FtP issues between February 2010 and October 2016. Using correlation analysis, we examined to what degree performance on the knowledge test, OSCE, and SimSurg related to case examiner recommendations and FtP outcomes, including the unique predictive power of these three assessments. The outcome measures were case examiner recommendations (i) not fit to practise; ii) fit to practise on a limited basis; or iii) fit to practise) as well as FtP outcomes (i) erased/removed from the register; ii) having restrictions/conditions; or iii) be in good standing). For the qualitative component, 45 GP assessors were asked to rate whether they assess the same competencies and which assessment provides better feedback about candidates. There was significant overlap between OSCEs and SimSurg, p < 0.001. SimSurg had additional predictive power in the presence of OSCEs and the knowledge test (p = 0.030) in distinguishing doctors from different FtP categories, while OSCEs did not (p = 0.080). Both the OSCEs (p = 0.004) and SimSurg (p < 0.001) had significant negative correlations with case examiner recommendations when accounting for the effects of the other two assessments. Inductive thematic analysis of the responses to the questionnaire showed that assessors perceived OSCEs to be better suited to target specific knowledge and skills. SimSurg was thought to produce a more global picture as the scenarios more accurately portray a patient consultation. While all three assessments are strong predictors of both case examiner recommendations and FtP outcomes, our findings suggest that the efficiency of GP ToCs can be improved by removing some of this overlapping content.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,520,273
of 14,546,774 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#270
of 2,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,227
of 397,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#34
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.