ArticleBMC medical education2026
Operationalising readiness for practice in final OSCEs: insights from a mixed-methods study across five Australian medical schools.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReadiness for practice (RFP) is a critical outcome for medical education, reflecting a graduate’s ability to transition from student to clinician. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) play a pivotal role in evaluating RFP. This study aimed to investigate the conceptualisation and operationalisation of RFP within the OSCE context and evaluate the contribution of a newly developed RFP-focused rating tool compared to traditional OSCE scoring.
methodsUtilising a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, this study was conducted across five Australian medical schools. Quantitative data from final-year medical students’ OSCE results were analysed to examine correlations between RFP scores and components of a 5-item Process of Decision-Making (PDM) checklist: safety, reliability, trustworthiness, insight, and an organised/logical approach. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with OSCE examiners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to explore their perceptions of RFP and decision-making processes.
resultsQuantitative analyses of 550 medical students’ OSCE performance datasets revealed that global rating had the strongest correlation with RFP scores, followed by safety and reliability components of the PDM checklist, whereas trustworthiness showed a weaker association. Failing students consistently scored poorly across all checklist components and RFP, with approximately half or fewer meeting individual checklist requirements. Qualitative analysis of nine examiners’ interviews produced a schema of What, How, and Why: What assessors viewed as RFP was the integration of clinical competence, safety, scope awareness, reasoning, and team readiness; How RFP was judged was through behaviours such as supervision-seeking, recognising unwell patients, attitudinal maturity, and structured consultations; Why RFP judgments were used included: to assess socio-relational skills, address workplace limitations, and make decisions, particularly on borderline performances.
conclusionsReadiness for practice is a complex, multi-dimensional construct that includes application of knowledge, technical skills, reliability, professional identity, safety and trustworthiness. While this study does not directly evaluate examiner training, understanding how examiners apply RFP frameworks may inform future efforts to enhance training consistency, fairness, and assessment utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.