You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Trainee concerns regarding the Specialty Certificate Examination: results of a British Thoracic Society national survey
  1. Caroline Marie Patterson1,
  2. Richard Ian Carter2,
  3. James William Dodd3,
  4. Andrea Collins4
  1. 1 CLAHRC, Imperial College, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, London, UK
  2. 2 Centre for Translational Inflammation Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3 Department of Academic Respiratory Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol UK
  4. 4 Respiratory Infection Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to
    Dr Caroline Marie Patterson, CLAHRC, Imperial College, Chelsea and Westminster Campus, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK;cmpatterson{at}doctors.net.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204306

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    As aspiring respiratory physicians are aware, The Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians of the UK (FRCPUK) has introduced Specialty Certificate Examinations (SCEs) to complement workplace-based assessments. Successful completion of the SCE in Respiratory Medicine is a prerequisite for Certificate of Completion of Training for all UK respiratory trainees whose specialist training began during or after August 2007.

    The SCE comprises two papers, each lasting 3 h and containing 100 questions in a ‘best of five’ format. Delivery and marking of the examination is computer-based. The FRCPUK has worked in partnership with specialist societies, including the British Thoracic Society (BTS), to optimise examination validity and reliability.

    Analyses of SCE performance have been reported by the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CMP devised the electronic survey with AC, and collated the results. CMP, RIC and JWD contributed to data interpretation. CMP, RIC and JWD wrote the manuscript and CMP acts as guarantor for the submission.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles