Although it is commonly assumed that the quality of medical school education in Australia is uniformly high, there is no national process for assessing its outcomes. There is substantial variability in the content of medical school curricula, and the process of curriculum change is becoming more challenging because of intense competition for time and space in the course. A national exit examination could provide a uniform standard of assessment for all medical school graduates in Australia, as well as foreign graduates applying to work in Australia. Such an examination could assess medical school outcomes, monitor the effects of curriculum change, and provide a benchmark for new medical schools that would help medical curricula evolve to better meet society's needs.

Our data reflect changes in the final two years of the medical course at UWA and suggest that the introduction of dedicated attachments in cancer and palliative care has better prepared graduating doctors to care for patients with cancer.

Advances in patient management has resulted in a shift to ambulatory care reducing patient accessibility. Medical schools must identify means to provide students with adequate patent exposure.

In Australia, one in two men and one in three women will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. Several studies have demonstrated a decline in the number of medical graduates having examined cancer patients during their training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the exposure of medical students to cancer patients during clinical placements. Eighty-eight logbooks (response rate = 24.75%) containing 9430 patients were analysed. A total of 829 patients (8.79%) had a diagnosis of cancer. Most cancer patients were seen on surgical placements, whilst general practice placements returned the lowest numbers. None were seen in paediatrics or ophthalmology. Given the role surgery plays in the staging and treatment of cancer, it is unsurprising that most cancer patients were seen during surgery.  Most concerning was the number of patients with common cancers seen by our students. Only 46% of students saw a patient with breast cancer. Even fewer saw patients with colorectal (41%), lung (32%) and prostate cancer (30%). Only 14% saw a melanoma patient. Variability in the quality of the logbooks is the main limitation of this study, and therefore, it is not a complete picture of cancer patient exposure. However, it builds upon previous studies by providing insight to the number and types of cancer patients to which students were exposed. Overall, the exposure to common cancers remains concerning and further research is needed to explore the type and quality of these interactions over the course of an entire year.

(2019). Student exposure to cancer patients: an analysis of clinical logbooks and focus groups in clinical year medical students.

The past decade has seen an increased effort to standardized medical curricula internationally. Despite these efforts, a lack of standardization remains evident, most likely owing to the lack of specificity with which such frameworks are often (out of necessity) constructed. As such, inconsistencies may arise owing to differences in adopted definitions and approaches to assessment. The authors highlight six key points to aid the individual educator in translating overarching frameworks into specific learning objectives that are measurable, written at a level of generality, complexity and difficulty that is clear, appropriate and explicit in what is required of the student.

SCIMs appear to be an effective instructional format in the small group setting. We covered a broad range of topics in a cost-effective manner and with minimal tutors and resources.

A number of curricula have been developed to address shortfalls in cancer education. However, no standardised means of assessing medical graduates against such curricula currently exist. This paper describes the use of expert panels to determine the level of cancer-related knowledge required by junior doctors. Participants individually reviewed knowledge items from the Ideal Oncology Curriculum for Medical Students and rated the level of understanding and specificity of each. On completion, panel sessions were convened to reach consensus. Fifty-two (17 %) items were considered irrelevant for junior doctors, whilst 164 items (54 %) and 85 items (28 %) were deemed appropriate at a moderate and high level of understanding, respectively. As a result, 249 (83 %) of the 301 items were deemed appropriate for junior doctors. Expert panels provide an important insight into the requirements of junior doctors, reduce ambiguity and facilitate discussion, resulting in higher quality data than that produced solely through individual reviews.