Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31888940›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Realist evaluation of UK medical education quality assurance.

Paul Crampton, Leila Mehdizadeh, Michael Page, Laura Knight, Ann Griffin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Quality in postgraduate medical education: A contested idea.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paul CramptonHealth Professions Education Unit, Hull York Medical School, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8744-930X
Leila MehdizadehResearch Department for Medical Education, UCL, London, UK.
Michael PageInstitute for Health Sciences Education, QMUL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1932-9925
Laura KnightResearch Department for Medical Education, UCL, London, UK.
Ann GriffinResearch Department for Medical Education, UCL, London, UK a.griffin@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council's (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?

settingUK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.

participantsWe conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.

interventionThe GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

resultsAcross components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC's framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation's performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.

conclusionsThis realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC's approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, MedicalEducation, Medical, GraduateEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansInterviews as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited Kingdommedical education and trainingqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID31888940
PMCPMC6937024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.