Background The medical specialties are characterised by a great diversity in their daily work which requires different sets of competences. A requirement analysis would help to establish competence profiles of the different medical specialities. The aim of this pilot study was to define competence profiles for individual medical specialties. This could provide a framework as support for medical graduates who wish to choose a medical specialty for their postgraduate training. Methods In February 2020, physicians were invited via the State Chamber of Physicians’ monthly journal to electronically fill out the requirement tracking (R-Track) questionnaire. It contains 63 aspects assigned to six areas of competence: “Mental abilities”, “Sensory abilities”, “Psychomotor and multitasking abilities”, “Social interactive competences”, “Motivation”, and “Personality traits”. The expression of the different aspects was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1: “very low” to 5: “very high”). Sociodemographic data and information about the current workplace (hospital or practice) were also collected. Results In total, 195 practicing physicians from 19 different specialities followed the invitation by the State Chamber of Physicians to participate in this survey. For almost all medical specialties, the competence area “Motivation” reached rank 1. “Psychomotor and multitasking abilities” received high ranks among specialties performing surgical activities, while “Social interactive competences” and “Personality traits” were highly rated by specialties with an intense level of patient-physician-interaction. “Mental abilities” were only rated highly by radiologists (rank 2) and physiologists (rank 3) while “Sensory abilities” were generally rated very low with the expression (rank 4) for anaesthesiology and ENT. Conclusions In this pilot study, a first outline of competences profiles for 17 medical specialties were defined. The specific “Motivation” for a medical specialty seemed to play the greatest role for most specialties. This first specialty specific competence framework could provide a first insight into specific competences required by medical specialties and could serve medical graduate as a decision aid when looking for a medical specialty for their postgraduate training.

No abstract

Background Undergraduate medical education is supposed to equip medical students with basic competences to select any specialty of their choice for postgraduate training. Medical specialties are characterized by a great diversity of their daily work routines and require different sets of competence facets. This study examines the self-assessed competence profiles of final-year undergraduate medical students and their specialty choice for postgraduate training. Students’ profiles, who wish to choose anaesthesiology, internal medicine, or paediatrics, are compared with the physicians’ competence profiles from these three disciplines. Methods In this study, 148 volunteer final-year undergraduate medical students completed the modified requirement-tracking (R-Track) questionnaire for self-assessment of their competence profiles. The R-Track questionnaire contains 63 competence facets assigned to six areas of competence: “Mental abilities”, “Sensory abilities”, “Psychomotor & multitasking abilities”, “Social interactive competences”, “Motivation”, and “Personality traits”. The expression of the different competence facets had to be assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1: “very low” to 5: “very high”). Additionally, socio-demographic data and the participants’ first choice of a medical speciality for postgraduate education were collected. We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) for mean score comparison of subgroups and least significant difference (LSD) tests for post hoc analysis. Results The competence area with the highest rating was “Motivation” (3.70 ± 0.47) while “Psychomotor & multitasking abilities” received the lowest rating (3.34 ± 0.68). Individual facets of competence ranked from “In need of harmony” (4.36 ± 0.72), followed by “Tactfulness” (4.26 ± 0.64), and “Cooperation/Agreeableness” (4.24 ± 0.53) to “Risk orientation” (2.90 ± 0.92), “Mathematical reasoning” (2.87 ± 1.25), and “Sanctioning” (2.26 ± 0.93). The students’ competence profiles showed 100 % congruence with physicians’ competence profiles of the postgraduate specialty of their choice for internal medicine, 33.3 % for paediatrics, and 0 % for anaesthesiology. Conclusions Undergraduate medical students could define their competence profiles with the modified R-Track questionnaire and compare them with the profile of their desired specialty for postgraduate training to discover possible learning gaps or to detect good specialty matches. A combination of students’ competence self-assessment with an external assessment of students’ facets of competence could provide curricular planners with useful information how to design learning opportunities for specific facets of competence.