UK-trained doctors from ethnic minority groups underperform academically

A third of all UK medical students and junior doctors come from ethnic groups. In 2009, 36% of newly qualified doctors and 52% of all other NHS doctors were from these groups. A new study conducted by UCL researchers found that UK-trained medical students and doctors from ethnic minority groups underpeformed academically compared with their white counterparts. They systematically analysed 22 reports involving about 24,000 UK- trained medical students and doctors from different ethnic groups and found that the odds of failure in non-white candidates was 2.5 times higher than the white candidates. They said that ethnic differences in academic performance are widespread across different medical schools, different types of exams and in both undergraduate and postgraduate assessments. It was persistent for 30 years and "cannot be dismissed as atypical or local problems". They called for further research into the causes to ensure that all future doctors are assessed fairly. In an accompanying editorial, the author said that soultions will be found through critically appraising assessment methods, curricula and interactions with students.

What do you think may have caused the ethnic differences in attainment and how can they be resolved?

Source: Ethnicity and academic performance in UK trained doctors and medical students: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2011; 342:d901 ( free access) Editorial - Ethnicity and academic performance in the UK. BMJ 2011; 342:d709 ( free access)

Ethnicity & gender on MRCP exams pass rates

A research, undertaken by MRCP in collaboration with UCL, was published in the journal of BMC Medicine, looking at the "effects of ethnicity and gender of UK medical graduates on MRCP exam pass rates during 2003-04".

The researchers found :
In all three parts of the MRCP examination, white candidates performed better than other ethnic groups.

In Part 1 and Part 2 Written Examinations, gender did not make a significant difference.

In the Part 2 Clinical Examination, women performed better than men did. White candidates had a much higher pass rate than non-white candidates and non-white males were least successful, the poor performance was most marked in the communications and ethics assessments.

There was no evidence of the gender of the examiners that made significant difference, however, there was improved performance in communications and ethics of non-white candidates examined by 2 non-white examines.