Glen Bandiera1, Jerry Maniate, Mark D Hanson, Nikki Woods, Brian Hodges. 1. G. Bandiera is associate dean, Postgraduate Medical Education (Admissions and Evaluation), University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. J. Maniate is assistant professor, Department of Medicine, and chief, Medical Education, St. Joseph's Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M.D. Hanson is associate dean, Undergraduate Medicine, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. N. Woods is education scientist, Wilson Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. B. Hodges is full professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and vice president, Education, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: How to best select future doctors and the implications of selection for equity and access are timely, relevant, and complex issues that fundamentally affect other aspects of medical education such as curriculum design and social accountability. The authors thus conducted an environmental scan of practices related to access and selection in Canadian medical schools. METHOD: The authors drew and built on a literature review, key informant interviews, and expert panel discussions conducted as part of the 2008-2009 Future of Medical Education in Canada project to detail the empirical basis for prioritizing the study of access and selection, the evidence base of current practices, and implications for medical schools. RESULTS: Data clustered around four principles: (1) selection criteria must address current attributes and future potential, (2) access to medical school and diversity within the class are linked to a school's social accountability framework, (3) sound instruments and protocols are necessary to maximize reliability and validity, and (4) medical schools must be accountable for the effectiveness of their admissions processes. Although initiatives addressing barriers exist, ongoing challenges include recruitment and selection for overall diversity, adoption of better criteria for nonacademic achievement, and empirical validation of selection processes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based selection processes can optimize the provision of broadly competent physicians for a given population. Schools must work to minimize systematic barriers for specific groups. Although this analysis provides a Canadian perspective, the principles and implications are relevant to medical education institutions elsewhere.
PURPOSE: How to best select future doctors and the implications of selection for equity and access are timely, relevant, and complex issues that fundamentally affect other aspects of medical education such as curriculum design and social accountability. The authors thus conducted an environmental scan of practices related to access and selection in Canadian medical schools. METHOD: The authors drew and built on a literature review, key informant interviews, and expert panel discussions conducted as part of the 2008-2009 Future of Medical Education in Canada project to detail the empirical basis for prioritizing the study of access and selection, the evidence base of current practices, and implications for medical schools. RESULTS: Data clustered around four principles: (1) selection criteria must address current attributes and future potential, (2) access to medical school and diversity within the class are linked to a school's social accountability framework, (3) sound instruments and protocols are necessary to maximize reliability and validity, and (4) medical schools must be accountable for the effectiveness of their admissions processes. Although initiatives addressing barriers exist, ongoing challenges include recruitment and selection for overall diversity, adoption of better criteria for nonacademic achievement, and empirical validation of selection processes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based selection processes can optimize the provision of broadly competent physicians for a given population. Schools must work to minimize systematic barriers for specific groups. Although this analysis provides a Canadian perspective, the principles and implications are relevant to medical education institutions elsewhere.
Authors: Sanne Schreurs; Kitty B Cleutjens; Arno M M Muijtjens; Jennifer Cleland; Mirjam G A Oude Egbrink Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 2.463