There has been increasing use and significance of progress testing in medical education. It is used in many ways and with several formats to reflect the variety of curricula and assessment purposes. These developments have occurred alongside a recognised sensitivity for error variance inherent in multiple choice tests from which challenges to its validity and reliability have arisen. This Guide presents a generic, systemic framework to help identify and explore improvements in the quality and defensibility of progress test data. The framework draws on the combined experience of the Dutch consortium, an individual medical school in the United Kingdom, and the bulk of the progress test literature to date. It embeds progress testing as a quality-controlled assessment tool for improving learning, teaching and the demonstration of educational standards. The paper describes strengths, highlights constraints and explores issues for improvement. These may assist in the establishment of potential or new progress testing in medical education programmes. They can also guide the evaluation and improvement of existing programmes.

No abstract

Introduction: In the Ottawa 2018 Consensus framework for good assessment, a set of criteria was presented for systems of assessment. Currently, programmatic assessment is being established in an increasing number of programmes. In this Ottawa 2020 consensus statement for programmatic assessment insights from practice and research are used to define the principles of programmatic assessment. Methods: For fifteen programmes in health professions education affiliated with members of an expert group (n ¼ 20), an inventory was completed for the perceived components, rationale, and importance of a programmatic assessment design. Input from attendees of a programmatic assessment workshop and symposium at the 2020 Ottawa conference was included. The outcome is discussed in concurrence with current theory and research. Results and discussion: Twelve principles are presented that are considered as important and recognisable facets of programmatic assessment. Overall these principles were used in the curriculum and assessment design, albeit with a range of approaches and rigor, suggesting that programmatic assessment is an achievable education and assessment model, embedded both in practice and research. Knowledge on and sharing how programmatic assessment is being operationalized may help support educators charting their own implementation journey of programmatic assessment in their respective programmes.

Used appropriately, progress testing can provide a wide range of feedback to every individual or group of individuals in a medical school.

BackgroundConcern exists regarding differential performance of candidates in postgraduate clinical assessments by ethnicity, sex, and country of primary qualification. Could examiner bias be responsible? AimTo explore whether candidate demographics affect examiners' judgements, by investigating candidates' case performances by candidates' and examiners' demographics. Design and settingData on 4000 candidates (52 000 cases) sitting the MRCGP clinical skills assessment in 2011-2012. MethodUnivariate analyses were undertaken of subgroup performance (male/female, white/ black and minority ethnic (BME), UK/non-UK graduates) by parallel examiner demographics. Due to confounding of variables, these were complemented by multivariate ANOVA and multiple regression analyses. ResultsUnivariate analysis showed some differences between outcomes between the same-group and other-group examiners: these were contradictory regarding examiners 'favouring their own', for example, males received higher marks from female examiners than from males: maximum effect size was 3.6%. A six-way ANOVA confirmed all three candidate and examiner variables as having significant effects individually, identifying one significant interaction (examiner sex by examiner ethnicity). Stepwise regression showed candidate variables predicting 12% of score variance, parallel examiner demographics adding little (approximately 0.2% of variance). One 'transactional' variable proved significant, explaining 0.06% of score variance. ConclusionExaminers show no general tendency to 'favour their own kind'. With confounding between variables, as far as the impact on candidates' case scores, substantial effects relate to candidate and not examiner characteristics. Candidate-examiner interaction effects were inconsistent in their direction and slight in their calculated impact.

Background Chronic wounds (e.g. diabetic foot ulcers) reduce the quality of life, yet treatments remain limited. Glucocorticoids (activated by the enzyme 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1, 11β-HSD1) impair wound healing. Objectives Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of 11β-HSD1 inhibition for skin function and wound healing. Design Investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 2b pilot trial. Methods Single-center secondary care setting. Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus without foot ulcers were administered 400 mg oral 11β-HSD1 inhibitor AZD4017 (n = 14) or placebo (n = 14) bi-daily for 35 days. Participants underwent 3-mm full-thickness punch skin biopsies at baseline and on day 28; wound healing was monitored after 2 and 7 days. Computer-generated 1:1 randomization was pharmacy-administered. Analysis was descriptive and focused on CI estimation. Of the 36 participants screened, 28 were randomized. Results Exploratory proof-of-concept efficacy analysis suggested AZD4017 did not inhibit 24-h ex vivoskin 11β-HSD1 activity (primary outcome; difference in percentage conversion per 24 h 1.1% (90% CI: −3.4 to 5.5) but reduced systemic 11β-HSD1 activity by 87% (69–104%). Wound diameter was 34% (7–63%) smaller with AZD4017 at day 2, and 48% (12–85%) smaller after repeat wounding at day 30. AZD4017 improved epidermal integrity but modestly impaired barrier function. Minimal adverse events were comparable to placebo. Recruitment rate, retention, and data completeness were 2.9/month, 27/28, and 95.3%, respectively. Conclusion A phase 2 trial is feasible, and preliminary proof-of-concept data suggests AZD4017 warrants further investigation in conditions of delayed healing, for example in diabetic foot ulcers. Significance statement Stress hormone activation by the enzyme 11β-HSD type 1 impairs skin function (e.g. integrity) and delays wound healing in animal models of diabetes, but effects in human skin were previously unknown. Skin function was evaluated in response to treatment with a 11β-HSD type 1 inhibitor (AZD4017), or placebo, in people with type 2 diabetes. Importantly, AZD4017 was safe and well tolerated. This first-in-human randomized, controlled, clinical trial found novel evidence that 11β-HSD type 1 regulates skin function in humans, including improved wound healing, epidermal integrity, and increased water loss. Results warrant further studies in conditions of impaired wound healing, for example, diabetic foot ulcers to evaluate 11β-HSD type 1 as a novel therapeutic target forchronic wounds.

Progress testing has worked well in a new school. Opportunities for further study and development exist. It is to be hoped that our experiences and evidence will assist and inform others as they consider developments for their own schools.

Although progress testing (PT) is well established in several medical schools, it is new to dentistry. Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry has recently established a Bachelor of Dental Surgery programme and has been one of the first schools to use PT in a dental setting. Issues associated with its development and of its adaption to the specific needs of the dental curriculum are considered.