Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) performance among Quebec urology residents: A retrospective study from 2008–2019
Keywords:Education, OSCE, Urology, Clinical Competence
Introduction: We aimed to compare objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) performance of residents from four Canadian urology programs, based on resident and station characteristics. We also aimed to evaluate OSCE contents by station type and subspecialty.
Methods: Scores of 109 postgraduate year (PGY)-3 to PGY-5 residents were retrospectively reviewed from 19 OSCEs from May 2008 to February 2019. Scores were grouped by station type/subspecialty, PGY level, medical graduate type (Canadian medical graduate [CMG], international medical graduate [IMG]), sex, and choice of fellowship/practice. Linear mixed modelling was performed to obtain least square means to account for repeated measures.
Results: Score increases from PGY-3 to PGY-5 were significant for all station types and subspecialties (p≤0.001). Scores were similar between male and female residents, and between CMGs and IMGs, except in visual recognition examinations (VREs) (males: 44.3±1.0, females: 39.0±1.6, p=0.005; IMG: 47.3±1.7, CMG: 41.6±0.9, p=0.004). Relative to uro-oncology stations, scores were lower in andrology (p=0.010) and functional urology (p<0.001). More female residents chose pediatric (14.3% vs. 1.5%, p=0.024) and functional urology fellowships (17.9% vs. 2.9%, p=0.021). More male residents chose endourology/robotic fellowships (30.9% vs. 10.7%, p=0.042). No associations between subspecialty scores and choice of fellowship/practice were found. Oral stations and VREs were more frequent than telephone stations. Uro-oncology and pediatric urology were more frequent than other subspecialties.
Conclusions: Scores improved with higher PGY level. IMGs and male residents scored better in VREs. Scores were lower in functional urology. There was no correlation between subspecialty score and choice of fellowship/practice. Subspecialties and forms of evaluation were not equally represented.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.