Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Undergraduate Surgical Training: A Pilot Study

Background: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is central to competency-based medical education, yet its adoption in resource-limited general surgery settings is underexplored. This pilot study assessed the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability of implementing an OSCE in India's National Medical Council (NMC)-mandated undergraduate curriculum. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary hospital's general surgery department over six months. Twenty-eight MBBS students and 15 faculty participated. Three OSCE stations assessed pancreatitis management, Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) primary survey, and history-taking for abdominal pain, using standardized checklists and rating scales. Faculty underwent calibration workshops. Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's α and Cohen's κ. Stakeholder feedback was evaluated through structured surveys. Results: Student performance differed significantly across stations (F = 6.21, p = 0.002); the ATLS station had the highest scores (9.1 ± 0.8). Internal consistency was strong (Cronbach's α: students 0.84, faculty 0.79), and inter-rater reliability improved post training (κ: 0.42 to 0.78). Female students excelled in communication (p = 0.023). OSCEs caused less stress than traditional exams (p < 0.001), and greater preparation correlated with reduced stress. Student satisfaction reached 92.9%, but faculty reported limited resources (2.9/5). Prior OSCE experience among faculty improved station realism (p = 0.015). Conclusion: OSCEs in general surgery were feasible, reliable, and well-accepted by students but highlighted the need for better resources, robust faculty training, and institutional support for scalability and sustainability.