OMEN Education Grand Rounds: Admission Process

[Guest MDWannabe]

Thanks to Angela and Kirsteen, at the last moment I attended the OMEN Education Grand Rounds session this morning. It was a pretty informative presentation about the Multi-Mini Interview (or MMI) Pilot Study. They talked about the thinking leading up to the initiation of the MMI study, and discussed the results of the recent (2nd) test study. It was mentioned that since a medical school admission is almost certainly equivalent to a ticket to practice medicine, the admissions process is critical. Much early discussion revolved around the subjectivity of the current process, and that improvement was needed.

 

The reference point to determine success is apparently the LMCC. It was indicated that there was some literature to show that the LMCC was a good indicator of success 10 years down the road. The other side of the coin is that there appears at this point to be no other reasonable reference point, at least in the view of the researchers.

 

Given this reference point, undergrad GPA (not surprisingly) shows the highest correlation to ultimate success. The other factors, including autobiographical submission, reference letters and current interview process, seem to have very low correlation to the LMCC results.

 

The belief was expressed that the MMI offered a chance to test a whole host of factors not specifically dealt with in the current process. It could foster discussions on aspects of ethics, communication, general health care system knowledge and critical thinking. In the study, there were 8 stations, each providing a different scenario, fact situation, or question to be addressed. The correlation of individual stations to the reference point fell within a large range, but the ultimate overall correlation was quite high. The study results showed no significant result differences based on gender. Interestingly enough the most significant NEGATIVE correlation was between GPA and the MMI results. It was suggested that the MMI process's ability to determine non-academic factors might be the reason.

 

The overall feeling expressed was that the MMI seemed to have real potential, and that, on the other hand, the current process needs real improvement. Even as a filtering out process to weed out the 'psychopath applicants', the current process was deemed ineffective. Studies were mentioned to show that only a spy is effective in weeding out liars!

 

My sticking point in this whole process is the LMCC reference point. It would interesting to see the research on this point, but it's hard for me to imagine that the LMCC is in particular a good predictor to determine who will be a caring and effective family practitioner. Obviously, one would expect GPA to be highly correlated with this guidepost - it's almost a tautology; but is it the right guidepost for a place like Mac?

[Guest question]

what is LMCC

[Guest MDWannabe]

From the MCC website:

 

...a qualification in medicine, known as the Licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada. Holders of the LMCC are acceptable to the provincial and territorial medical licensing authorities for the issuance of a license to practice medicine. This LMCC qualification is granted to graduate physicians who have passed the Qualifying Examination (QE) Part I and Part II conducted by the MCC. The LMCC is awarded to physicians who meet the MCC's standards, whether they are Canadian graduates or international medical graduates (IMG's). Their names are thus entered in the Canadian Medical Register.

 

I hope this helps!