Key result
South African anaesthesiology teachers and examiners perceived recent graduates as unprepared for the majority of specialist roles, in significant contrast to the graduates' own self-assessments.
Why the study?
Anaesthesiologists must be deemed fit for purpose prior to independent practice, and stakeholder opinions—including teachers, examiners, and graduates—help determine preparedness.
Cross-Sectional
Yes
There is a significant discrepancy between how prepared South African anaesthesiology graduates feel and how prepared their teachers and examiners perceive them to be.
Seniors view graduates as unprepared for leadership and advocacy roles; leaves open whether self-perception improves with experience or requires curriculum adjustment.
Background: Anaesthesiologists must be assessed as and deemed fit for purpose (FFP) to function independently as specialists prior to their embarking on independent practice. Opinions of various stakeholders are useful in determining whether graduating specialists are prepared for practice, some of which include teachers, examiners and the graduates themselves. Methods: This descriptive quantitative study comprised recent graduates and anaesthesiology teachers and examiners from all eight national university departments of anaesthesiology. Each participant scored the preparedness of graduates’ competences deemed appropriate by national experts via an electronic survey. Nine specialist role meta-competences (medical expert, communicator, collaborator, leader, health advocate, scholar, professional, context awareness, humaneness) with their accompanying 101 component enabling competences were assessed. Participants used a 4-point Likert scale to score preparedness for each meta- and enabling competence (1– completely unprepared; 2 – somewhat prepared; 3 – prepared; 4 – completely prepared). Scores of 1 and 2 were considered as unprepared and 3 and 4 as prepared. Scores of graduates, teachers and examiners were compared. After individual group comparisons, the scores of combined teachers and examiners (seniors) were compared with those of graduates. Results: Response rates for graduates, teachers and examiners were 85%, 68% and 96% respectively. Graduates felt prepared for 7/9 roles (medical expert, collaborator, communicator, professional, scholar, context awareness and humaneness) and unprepared for the roles of health advocate and leader. Teachers’ and examiners’ scores were similar, perceiving graduates as prepared for 4/9 roles (medical expert, collaborator, context awareness and humaneness) and unprepared for the majority of their roles (communicator, scholar, professional, leader and health advocate). Leader and health advocate roles were unanimously perceived as unprepared by all three groups. Statistically significant disparate scores were evident between seniors and graduates for the roles of communicator, scholar and professional, with graduates assessing themselves as more prepared compared to the opinions of seniors. Conclusion: According to South African national anaesthesiology teachers and examiners, local graduates may not be fit for purpose, despite the contrasting perceptions of graduates. Graduates’ self-assessment may be less objective than that of experienced opinions, necessitating the need for longitudinal assessments to establish the impact of experience on subsequent graduate perceptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalafatis et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Anaesthesiology graduate preparedness. Self-assessment of preparedness vs. Assessment by teachers and examiners was evaluated on Preparedness across 9 specialist role meta-competences. South African anaesthesiology teachers and examiners perceived recent graduates as unprepared for the majority of specialist roles, in significant contrast to the graduates' own self-assessments.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: