Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 30;9(8):e027369.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027369.

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review

Affiliations

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review

Maulina Sharma et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: The General Medical Council (GMC) recommends medical schools to develop and implement curricula enabling students to achieve the required learning outcomes. UK medical schools follow the GMC's Outcomes for graduates, which are generic. GMC plans to introduce a national Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) for the medical graduates wanting to practise medicine in the UK in 2022. With no standardised or unified undergraduate (UG) curriculum in UK, various specialties have expressed concerns about not being represented in medical schools and developed specialty-specific core curricula. The aim of this review was to identify learned bodies who have developed a core curriculum for UK medical schools and highlight the drivers, gaps and future approaches to curricular development and implementation.

Methods: A literature search was conducted using online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, ERIC, HMIC, PubMed and CDSR), search engines and related websites (Google and Google Scholar, Department of Health, GMC and BMA) for relevant articles from 1996 to 5 March 2019 (~20 years). A methodological framework to map the key concepts of UG medical curriculum was followed. Any relevant body with a core curriculum for UK medical UGs was included.

Results: A total of 1283 articles were analysed with 31 articles included in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 26 specialties (clinical n=18, foundation subjects n=4 and professionalism related n=4). WHO, European and national (eg, Royal Colleges of UK) specialty bodies provided specific core learning outcomes for the medical graduates. Patient safety, disease burden, needs of society and inadequate preparedness of medical graduates were drivers for the development of these curricula.

Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive review of literature on UG core curricula recommending minimum standards on knowledge and skills, in alignment with GMC's Outcomes for graduates for all the UK medical students. Adopting and assessing unified standards would help reduce variability across UK medical schools for both generic and specialty-specific competencies.

Keywords: core; curriculum; medical education and training; undergraduate; united kingdom.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the scoping review. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; UG, undergraduate.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Manchester Promoting excellence: standards for medical education and training, 2015. Available: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/Promoting_excellence_standards_... [Accessed 28 Sep 2018].
    1. Medical Licencing Assessment General medical Council, 2018. Available: https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/standards-guidance-and-curricula/projec... [Accessed 28 Sep 2018].
    1. Outcomes for graduates General medical Council, 2018. Available: https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/dc11326-outcomes-for-graduates-... [Accessed 28 Sep 2018].
    1. Future Hospital: caring for medical patients , 2013. Available: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/future-hospital-commission [Accessed 28 Sep 2018].
    1. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources