This process description details the evolution of NKLM, enhancing the learning objectives in medical education frameworks.
Introduction: The “National Competence Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education” (NKLM) constitutes the content framework for medical studies in the Federal Republic of Germany. It defines the competencies that are deemed to be essential for all graduates to acquire by the conclusion of their studies, irrespective of the specialisation they subsequently pursue in residency. Another objective is to achieve what is termed “constructive alignment”, i.e. coordination between state examinations and faculty learning, teaching and assessment. This manuscript describes the development of the NKLM since 2009, with the overarching objective being the continual enhancement of the catalogue’s usability for the faculties. Project description: The creation and revision of the catalogue were conceptualised and coordinated in various constellations by the Association for Medical Education (GMA), the German Association of Medical Faculties (MFT), and the LOOOP research team at Charité and Brandenburg Medical School. The most recent findings from educational research have been continuously incorporated into the structure of the catalogue and the processing algorithms. In light of the aforementioned algorithms, the catalogue has been revised by a team of over 1,000 subject matter experts. The release of Version 2.1 is scheduled for the summer of 2026. Summary and outlook: The catalogue has undergone a series of refinements, improvements to its internal structure, and a substantial reduction in content scope across three interim versions: NKLM 1.0, NKLM 1.0 (neo), and NKLM 2.0. The NKLM serves as the foundation for the core curricula of the faculties. It is designed to be a living document that is continually adapted to new findings and topics. Development of the subsequent version, designated as 3.0, is already in preparation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennebach et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: