The Revised 2017 MSPE: Better, But Not “Outstanding”

Hook, Lauren; Salami, Aitua; Diaz, Tenesha; Friend, Kara; Fathalizadeh, Alisan; Joshi, Amit

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.014

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the process for making changes to a school's MSPE involves discussion and preparation, it is likely that October 2018 MSPEs, for the 2019 graduating class, were the first to fully implement this process. 2 The MSPE in 2018…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) 2017 Task Force Recommendations as Reflected in the Format of 2018 MSPE

Giang

2019

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) 2017 Task Force Recommendations as Reflected in the Format of 2018 MSPE

Giang

2019

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The MSPE has had varying importance as part of the residency application and selection process [ 10 ]. Only 70% of medical schools used school-wide comparative performance data in their MSPEs in 2017 [ 11 ]. In the 2018 survey of Program Directors in Internal Medicine, respondents asked for more transparency and comparative data and for information on areas where a candidate needs to improve [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical School to Residency: How Can We Trust the Process?

Dallaghan¹,

Alexandraki²,

Christner³

et al. 2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo say that the transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) is under scrutiny would be an understatement. Findings from a panel discussion at the 2018 Association of American Medical Colleges Annual meeting entitled, "Pass-Fail in Medical School and the Residency Application Process and Graduate Medical Education Transition" addressed what and when information should be shared with residency programs, and how and when that information should be shared. Materials and MethodsOver 250 participants representing UME and GME (e.g. leadership, faculty, medical students) completed worksheets addressing these questions. During report-back times, verbal comments were transcribed in real time, and written comments on worksheets were later transcribed. All comments were anonymous. Thematic analysis was conducted manually by the research team to analyze the worksheet responses and report back comments. ResultsThemes based on suggestions of what information should be shared included the following: 1) developmental/assessment benchmarks such as demonstrating the ability/competencies to do clinical work; 2) performance on examinations; 3) grades and class ranking; 4) 360 evaluations; 5) narrative evaluations; 6) failures/remediation/gaps in training; 7) professionalism lapses; 8) characteristics of students such as resiliency/reliability; and 9) service/leadership/participation. In terms of how this information should be shared, the participants suggested enhancements to the current process of transmitting documents rather than alternative methods (e.g., video, telephonic, face-to-face discussions) and information sharing at both the time of the match and again near/at graduation to include information about post-match rotations. DiscussionConsiderations to address concerns with the transition from medical school to residency include further enhancements to the Medical Student Performance Evaluation, viewing departmental letters as ones of evaluation and not recommendation, a more meaningful educational handoff, and limits on the number of residency applications allowed for each student. The current medical education environment is ready for meaningful change in the UME to GME transition.

show abstract

“…4 Since that time, little has been published about this topic. In 2017, Hook and colleagues 5 evaluated MSPEs from 113 of 147 US medical schools (77%) and concluded that the majority had incorporated the 2016 MSPE Task Force recommendations, although not all suggestions were adopted uniformly. For example, while more than 95% of US medical schools had decreased their page count, just under 70% presented school-wide comparative performance data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Revised Medical School Performance Evaluation: Does It Meet the Needs of Its Readers?

Brenner

Arayssi

Conigliaro

et al. 2019

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important factor for application to residency programs. Many medical schools are incorporating recent recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges MSPE Task Force into their letters. To date, there has been no feedback from the graduate medical education community on the impact of this effort. Objective We surveyed individuals involved in residency candidate selection for internal medicine programs to understand their perceptions on the new MSPE format. Methods A survey was distributed in March and April 2018 using the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine listserv, which comprises 4220 individuals from 439 residency programs. Responses were analyzed, and themes were extracted from open-ended questions. Results A total of 140 individuals, predominantly program directors and associate program directors, from across the United States completed the survey. Most were aware of the existence of the MSPE Task Force. Respondents read a median of 200 to 299 letters each recruitment season. The majority reported observing evidence of adoption of the new format in more than one quarter of all medical schools. Among respondents, nearly half reported the new format made the MSPE more important in decision-making about a candidate. Within the MSPE, respondents recognized the following areas as most influential: academic progress, summary paragraph, graphic representation of class performance, academic history, and overall adjective of performance indicator (rank). Conclusions The internal medicine graduate medical education community finds value in many components of the new MSPE format, while recognizing there are further opportunities for improvement.

show abstract

The Revised 2017 MSPE: Better, But Not “Outstanding”

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) 2017 Task Force Recommendations as Reflected in the Format of 2018 MSPE

Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) 2017 Task Force Recommendations as Reflected in the Format of 2018 MSPE

Medical School to Residency: How Can We Trust the Process?

The Revised Medical School Performance Evaluation: Does It Meet the Needs of Its Readers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About