Display options
Cite
Mukhtar O, Griffin J, Naheed S, et al. The Multiple Consultant Report: new assessment; same old problems. Clin Teach. 2017;15(1):34-37doi: 10.1111/tct.12619.
Mukhtar, O., Griffin, J., Naheed, S., & Bryant, C. (2018). The Multiple Consultant Report: new assessment; same old problems. The clinical teacher, 15(1), 34-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12619
Mukhtar, Omar, et al. "The Multiple Consultant Report: new assessment; same old problems." The clinical teacher vol. 15,1 (2018): 34-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12619
Mukhtar O, Griffin J, Naheed S, Bryant C. The Multiple Consultant Report: new assessment; same old problems. Clin Teach. 2018 Feb;15(1):34-37. doi: 10.1111/tct.12619. Epub 2017 Feb 22. PMID: 28225216.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Teach. 2018 Feb;15(1):34-37. doi: 10.1111/tct.12619. Epub 2017 Feb 22.

The Multiple Consultant Report: new assessment; same old problems.

The clinical teacher

Omar Mukhtar, Jessica Griffin, Salma Naheed, Catherine Bryant

Affiliations

  1. Experimental Medicine & Immunotherapeutics Division (EMIT), Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
  2. Department of Haematology, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK.
  3. Department of Oncology, University Hospital Southampton, UK.
  4. Department of Clinical Gerontology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

PMID: 28225216 DOI: 10.1111/tct.12619

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In December 2013 the Multiple Consultant Report (MCR) was introduced as an assessment tool for junior doctors (i.e. doctors below specialist status) in the UK, including those undertaking core medical training (CMT). It aims to capture the views of consultant supervisors about a doctor's clinical performance.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the mandatory nature of the MCR there is no published academic evaluation of this tool as an assessment of, or for, learning. The aim of this study was to explore opinions on the MCR amongst core medical trainees at a large London teaching hospital.

STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaires were distributed to the entire cohort of 42 core medical trainees. Data were enriched by a focus group. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data qualitatively.

FINDINGS: Twenty-two trainees (52%) completed the questionnaire. Six trainees attended a single focus group. A key issue highlighted by this study was a lack of awareness amongst trainees (and assessors) surrounding the introduction and purpose of the MCR. Ineffective feedback limited the potential impact of the assessment, but many trainees reported a perception that the MCR duplicated existing assessments. Registrars (doctors undergoing a minimum 4 years of specialty training along with higher training in general medicine) were considered better placed to offer detailed feedback regarding the clinical performance of core medical trainees, within the context of the MCR. [The MRC] aims to capture the views of consultant supervisors about a doctor's clinical performance CONCLUSIONS: The MCR has many of the weaknesses and strengths observed with existing assessments. Given this, perhaps it is time to reconsider our approach to workplace-based assessments.

© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

MeSH terms

Publication Types