The International Landscape of Medical Licensing Examinations: A Typology Derived From a Systematic Review

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Collaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

2 Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

3 School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Abstract

Background
National licensing examinations (NLEs) are large-scale examinations usually taken by medical doctors close to the point of graduation from medical school. Where NLEs are used, success is usually required to obtain a license for full practice. Approaches to national licensing, and the evidence that supports their use, varies significantly across the globe. This paper aims to develop a typology of NLEs, based on candidacy, to explore the implications of different examination types for workforce planning.

 
Methods
A systematic review of the published literature and medical licensing body websites, an electronic survey of all medical licensing bodies in highly developed nations, and a survey of medical regulators.

 
Results
The evidence gleaned through this systematic review highlights four approaches to NLEs: where graduating medical students wishing to practice in their national jurisdiction must pass a national licensing exam before they are granted a license to practice; where all prospective doctors, whether from the national jurisdiction or international medical graduates, are required to pass a national licensing exam in order to practice within that jurisdiction; where international medical graduates are required to pass a licensing exam if their qualifications are not acknowledged to be comparable with those students from the national jurisdiction; and where there are no NLEs in operation. This typology facilitates comparison across systems and highlights the implications of different licensing systems for workforce planning.

 
Conclusion
The issue of national licensing cannot be viewed in isolation from workforce planning; future research on the efficacy of national licensing systems to drive up standards should be integrated with research on the implications of such systems for the mobility of doctors to cross borders.

Highlights

Supplementary File 1 (Download)

Supplementary File 2 (Download)

Supplementary File 3 (Download)

Supplementary File 4 (Download)

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

"Watch the Video Summary"

References

  1. Borow M, Levi B, Glekin M. Regulatory tasks of national medical associations - international comparison and the Israeli case. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013;2(1):8. doi:10.1186/2045-4015-2-8
  2. Archer J, Lynn N, Coombes L, Roberts M, Gale T, de Bere SR. The medical licensing examination debate. Regulation & Governance. 2017;11(3):315-322. doi:10.1111/rego.12118
  3. Sklar DP. What happens after medical school? Current controversies about licensure, maintenance of certification, and continuing professional development. Acad Med. 2016;91(1):1-3. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001011
  4. Freeman BD. Is it time to rethink postgraduate training requirements for licensure? Acad Med. 2016;91(1):20-22. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000881
  5. Orlowski JM. Yes, it is time to rethink postgraduate training requirements for licensure! Acad Med. 2016;91(1):23-25. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000947
  6. Sullivan P. As number of medical schools surges, so does concern about quality. CMAJ. 2003;169(8):823.
  7. Boulet J, Bede C, McKinley D, Norcini J. An overview of the world's medical schools. Med Teach. 2007;29(1):20-26. doi:10.1080/01421590601131823
  8. Bourke A. The Internationalisation of Higher Education: the Case of Medical Education. Higher Education Quarterly. 1997;51(4):325-346. doi:10.1111/1468-2273.00050
  9. Schwarz MR, Wojtczak A. Global minimum essential requirements: a road towards competence-oriented medical education. Med Teach. 2002;24(2):125-129. doi:10.1080/01421590220120740
  10. Leitch S, Dovey SM. Review of registration requirements for new part-time doctors in new Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. The requirement to respect autonomy ends where harm to others begins. 2010:273.
  11. Karle H. Global standards and accreditation in medical education: a view from the WFME. Acad Med. 2006;81(12 Suppl):S43-48. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000243383.71047.c4
  12. Swanson DB, Roberts TE. Trends in national licensing examinations in medicine. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):101-114. doi:10.1111/medu.12810
  13. Chamberlain JM. Reforming Medical Regulation in the United Kingdom: From Restratification to Governmentality and Beyond. Medical Sociology Online. 2014;8(1):32-44.
  14. Chamberlain JM. Doctoring medical governance: Medical self-regulation in transition. Nova Science Publishers; 2009.
  15. Dixon-Woods M, Yeung K, Bosk CL. Why is U.K. medicine no longer a self-regulating profession? The role of scandals involving "bad apple" doctors. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(10):1452-1459. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.031
  16. Ferris RT. A Sea-change in american dentistry: a national clinical licensure examination, or a residency-based pathway? J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2006;6(1):129. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2005.12.031
  17. Neilson R. Authors have missed gap between theory and reality. BMJ. 2008;337. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1783
  18. Harden RM. Five myths and the case against a European or national licensing examination. Med Teach. 2009;31(3):217-220. doi:10.1080/01421590902741155
  19. Melnick DE. Licensing examinations in North America: is external audit valuable? Med Teach. 2009;31(3):212-214. doi:10.1080/01421590902741163
  20. Ricketts C, Archer J. Are national qualifying examinations a fair way to rank medical students? Yes. BMJ. 2008;337. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1282
  21. Cosby JC Jr. The American Board of Dental Examiners clinical dental licensure examination: a strategy for evidence-based testing. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2006;6(1):130-137. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2005.12.008
  22. Neumann LM, Macneil RL. Revisiting the National Board Dental Examination. J Dent Educ. 2007;71(10):1281-1292.
  23. Lehman EPt, Guercio JR. The Step 2 Clinical Skills exam--a poor value proposition. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(10):889-891. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1213760
  24. Boursicot KA, Roberts TE, Pell G. Using borderline methods to compare passing standards for OSCEs at graduation across three medical schools. Med Educ. 2007;41(11):1024-1031. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02857.x
  25. McManus IC, Elder AT, de Champlain A, Dacre JE, Mollon J, Chis L. Graduates of different UK medical schools show substantial differences in performance on MRCP(UK) Part 1, Part 2 and PACES examinations. BMC Med. 2008;6:5. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-5
  26. McManus IC, Wakeford R. PLAB and UK graduates' performance on MRCP(UK) and MRCGP examinations: data linkage study. BMJ. 2014;348:g2621. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2621
  27. McMahon GT, Tallia AF. Perspective: Anticipating the challenges of reforming the United States medical licensing examination. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):453-456. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccbea8
  28. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, et al. Physician scores on a national clinical skills examination as predictors of complaints to medical regulatory authorities. JAMA. 2007;298(9):993-1001. doi:10.1001/jama.298.9.993
  29. Wenghofer E, Klass D, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Doctor scores on national qualifying examinations predict quality of care in future practice. Med Educ. 2009;43(12):1166-1173. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03534.x
  30. Stewart CM, Bates RE Jr, Smith GE. Relationship between performance in dental school and performance on a dental licensure examination: an eight-year study. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(8):864-869.
  31. Norcini JJ, Boulet JR, Opalek A, Dauphinee WD. The relationship between licensing examination performance and the outcomes of care by international medical school graduates. Acad Med. 2014;89(8):1157-1162. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000310
  32. Bajammal S, Zaini R, Abuznadah W, et al. The need for national medical licensing examination in Saudi Arabia. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8:53. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-8-53
  33. Lillis S, Stuart M, Stuart N. New Zealand Registration Examination (NZREX Clinical): 6 years of experience as an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). N Z Med J. 2012;125(1361):74-80. 
  34. Archer J, Lynn N, Coombes L, et al. The impact of large scale licensing examinations in highly developed countries: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):212. doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7
  35. Boulet J, van Zanten M. Ensuring high-quality patient care: the role of accreditation, licensure, specialty certification and revalidation in medicine. Med Educ. 2014;48(1):75-86. doi:10.1111/medu.12286
  36. Kenny S, McInnes M, Singh V. Associations between residency selection strategies and doctor performance: a meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2013;47(8):790-800. doi:10.1111/medu.12234
  37. Green M, Jones P, Thomas JX, Jr. Selection criteria for residency: results of a national program directors survey. Acad Med. 2009;84(3):362-367. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181970c6b
  38. Noble IS. Are national qualifying examinations a fair way to rank medical students? No. BMJ. 2008;337:a1279. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1279
  39. van der Vleuten CP. National, European licensing examinations or none at all? Med Teach. 2009;31(3):189-191. doi:10.1080/01421590902741171
  40. Gorsira M. The utility of (European) licensing examinations. AMEE Symposium, Prague 2008. Med Teach. 2009;31(3):221-222. doi:10.1080/01421590902741189
  41. Noble IS. Are national qualifying examinations a fair way to rank medical students? No. BMJ. 2008;337:a1279. doi:10.1136/bmj.a1279
  42. General Medical Council. GMC Council approves development of UK medical licensing assessment. https://www.gmc-uk.org/news/26549.asp. Published June 4, 2015.
  43. Archer J, Lynn N, Roberts M, Coombes L, Gale T, Regan de Bere S. A Systematic Review on the impact of licensing examinations for doctors in countries comparable to the UK: Final Report. General Medical Council; 2015.
  44. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830-837. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
  45. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2014 Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. 2014:160. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf
  46. Doty DH, Glick WH. Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling. Acad Manage Rev. 1994;19(2):230-251. doi:10.2307/258704
  47. Fiss PC. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manage J. 2011;54(2):393-420. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120
  48. Burau V, Blank RH. Comparing health policy: An assessment of typologies of health systems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2006;8(1):63-76. doi:10.1080/13876980500513558
  49. Nowakowski M. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA). National Medical License Exams in Poland. Düsseldorf: GMS Publishing House; 2013. doi:10.3205/13gma293
  50. Kovacs E, Schmidt AE, Szocska G, Busse R, McKee M, Legido-Quigley H. Licensing procedures and registration of medical doctors in the European Union. Clin Med (Lond). 2014;14(3):229-238. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-3-229
  51. Rowe A, Garcia-Barbero M. Regulation and licensing of Physicians in the WHO European Region. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
  52. de Vries H, Sanderson P, Janta B, et al. International Comparison of Ten Medical Regulatory Systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2009.
  53. Seyfarth M, Reincke M, Seyfarth J, Ring J, Fischer MR. Grades on the second medical licensing examination in Germany before and after the Licensing Reform of 2002: a study in two medical schools in Bavaria. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(28-29):500-504. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0500
  54. Medical Examination Centre in Lodz. CEM website.  http://www.cem.edu.pl/.  Accessed February 18, 2014.
  55. Office of Licensing and Registration. Bahrain Medical Licensure Exam (BMLE) Rules and Regulations. Kingdom of Bahrain; 2006.
  56. Qatar Ministry of Public Health. Qatar Council for Healthcare Practitioners.  http://www.qchp.org.qa/en/Pages/Home.aspx.  Accessed February 18, 2014.
  57. Croation Medical Chamber.  https://www.hlk.hr/.  Accessed February 18, 2014.
  58. Sutherland K, Leatherman S. Regulation and Quality Improvement a review of the evidence. Health Foundation; 2006.
  59. Australian Medical Council Limited.  http://www.amc.org.au/.  Accessed February 18, 2014.
  60. Medical Council of New Zealand.  https://www.mcnz.org.nz/.  Accessed February 18, 2014.
  61. Musoke SB. Foreign Doctors and the Road to a Swedish Medical License Experienced barriers of doctors from non-EU countries [dissertaion]. Sweden: Södertörn University; 2012.
  62. Sonderen MJ, Denessen E, Cate OT, Splinter TA, Postma CT. The clinical skills assessment for international medical graduates in The Netherlands. Med Teach. 2009;31(11):e533-538. doi:10.3109/01421590903067220
  63. Shapiro C. Investment, Moral Hazard, and Occupational Licensing. Rev Econ Stud. 1986;53(5):843-862. doi:10.2307/2297722
  64. Kugler AD, Sauer RM. Doctors without Borders? Relicensing Requirements and Negative Selection in the Market for Physicians. J Labor Econ. 2005;23(3):437-465. doi:10.1086/430283
  65. Leitch S, Dovey SM. Review of registration requirements for new part-time doctors in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. J Prim Health Care. 2010;2(4):273-280.
  66. Audas R, Ross A, Vardy D. The use of provisionally licensed international medical graduates in Canada. Cmaj. 2005;173(11):1315-1316. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050675
  67. Maudsley RF. Assessment of international medical graduates and their integration into family practice: the Clinician Assessment for Practice Program. Acad Med. 2008;83(3):309-315. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318163710f
  68. Holtzman KZ, Swanson DB, Ouyang W, Dillon GF, Boulet JR. International variation in performance by clinical discipline and task on the United States medical licensing examination step 2 clinical knowledge component. Acad Med. 2014;89(11):1558-1562. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000488
  69. McGrath P, Wong A, Holewa H. Canadian and Australian licensing policies for international medical graduates: a web-based comparison. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011;24(1):452.
  70. Tiffin PA, Illing J, Kasim AS, McLachlan JC. Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) performance of doctors who passed Professional and Linguistic Assessments Board (PLAB) tests compared with UK medical graduates: national data linkage study. BMJ. 2014;348:g2622. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2622
  71. McManus IC, Wakeford R. PLAB and UK graduates' performance on MRCP(UK) and MRCGP examinations: data linkage study. BMJ. 2014;348:g2621. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2621
  72. The General Medical Council. Review of the GMC’s PLAB test: final report. 2014.
  73. Eckhert NL. The global pipeline: too narrow, too wide or just right? Med Educ. 2002;36(7):606-613.
  74. Chen LC, Boufford JI. Fatal flows--doctors on the move. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1850-1852. doi:10.1056/NEJMe058188
  75. Mullan F. The metrics of the physician brain drain. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1810-1818. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa050004

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 25 March 2018
  • Accept Date: 26 March 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics