Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2009  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 67--69

Criteria of acceptance in the Saudi program of anesthesia and intensive care


Jamal A.A Tashkandi 
 Department of Anesthesia, Consultant and Assistant Professor of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Jamal A.A Tashkandi
Department of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, King Khalid University, Abha, P O Box 505 Abha 61421.
Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Background: The scientific congress of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties aims to review and improve the guidelines for the selection process of trainees [1] , a selection process that is based on equal opportunity and upholds the principles of consistency, objectiveness, transparency, and procedural fairness. The study represents a step toward the goal of fostering quality patient care, by adopting a selection process that would result in graduating good, committed, and competent specialists. Materials and Methods: Reports of admission examinations in Jeddah, Riyadh, and the Eastern region have been collected, and they contain detailed lists of names, scores, and percentages of the criteria of admissions, that is, MB BS 25%, General Examination 50%, Interview 25%, and overall score of 100%. Results: Mean MB BS scores, average general examination scores, average interview scores, and average overall scores were not statistically different between candidates from different regions. The leading predictor was the «SQ»Interview Score«SQ». 49.5% of variation in the dependent variable (overall score) could be significantly explained (F = 69.4, P < 0.05) by the independent variable «SQ»Interview Score«SQ». The second predictor was the «SQ»MBBS score«SQ». Conclusion: The three components MB BS, General Examination, and Interview, were significant predictors of the overall score. The leading predictor was the «SQ»Interview Score«SQ». The author recommended that the selection process should be under continuous review. The general interview guide approach is recommended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected from each interviewer. Questions of a personal or discriminatory nature should be avoided.



How to cite this article:
Tashkandi JA. Criteria of acceptance in the Saudi program of anesthesia and intensive care.Saudi J Anaesth 2009;3:67-69


How to cite this URL:
Tashkandi JA. Criteria of acceptance in the Saudi program of anesthesia and intensive care. Saudi J Anaesth [serial online] 2009 [cited 2020 Sep 22 ];3:67-69
Available from: http://www.saudija.org/text.asp?2009/3/2/67/57881


Full Text

 Introduction



The Scientific Congress of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties is aiming to apply for a scientifically evidenced guideline for the selection process of trainees, which can be available on its website [2] , a selection process that is based on equal opportunity and upholds the principles of consistency, objectiveness, transparency, and procedural fairness. This study represents one of the many steps toward the goal set by the scientific congress of anesthesia and intensive care, which is fostering quality patient care by adopting a selection process, which could result in graduating good, committed, and competent specialists.

 Materials and Methods



Reports of admission for the year 2009-2010 of Jeddah, Riyadh, and the Eastern region have been collected from the office of the Scientific Congress of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Saudi Health Commission. Each report contains detailed lists of names, scores, and percentages of the three criteria of admissions, as per the guidelines of the Saudi Program of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, which follow the rules of the Saudi Health Commission, that is, MB BS 25%, General Examination 50%, Interview 25%, and an overall score of 100%. Frequency, arithmetic mean, and standard deviation have been used to present the data. Chi square and ANOVA have been used as a test of significance at the 5% level. Regression analysis has been used to study the predictors of overall scores.

 Results



The study included the data of 73 candidates who attended the admission examinations in Jeddah, Riyadh, and the Eastern region. The original cohort included 77 candidates, however, the data were not complete for four candidates. They were omitted from the final analysis. The majority of applicants were from Riyadh (41,56.2%), followed by Jeddah (23, 31.5%), and the Eastern Region (9,12.3%). The mean MB BS scores among candidates from different regions were not statistically significant from each other (F = 2.162, P = 0.123). Similarly other scores (average general examination scores, average interview scores, and average overall scores) were not statistically different between candidates from different regions.

[Table 1] and [Figure 1] show that the three components were significant predictors of the overall score. The leading predictor is the 'Interview Score', 49.5% of variation in the dependent variable (overall score) can be significantly explained (F = 69.4, P P P = 0.038).

 Discussion



This study shows that candidate scores (MB BS, General Examination, Interview, and Overall) are not different from each other by region. The strongest predictor of the overall score is the interview score. The acceptance rate is different by region. Even overall scores among the accepted are different by region. It seems that the acceptance - setting up the cut off point for acceptance - is preset and governed mainly by the number of available places rather than by the performance, which might explain this variation in spite of being similar in everything else as a group. The current selection components of acceptance stated by the Scientific Congress of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties could be divided into two main components, the academic record of achievement of the candidates, which is represented by both the MB BS score and the postgraduate General Examination, which carries 75% of the overall score, and a second component, which is the interview, which carries only 25%. It was not obvious from the gathered data whether the interview panels prepared core questions for the interview. In addition, no specific duration of time for the interview was mentioned in the reports.

Whether or not the interview is a good predictor of acceptance for the selection process of a good, committed, and competent specialist is yet to be decided. Currently this study cannot claim that it can answer such questions; despite the fact that it shows clearly that the strongest predictor of the overall score is the interview score. A further follow-up study could measure the performance of the currently accepted candidates, for example, results of the part I examination of the program could be compared with the findings of the follow-up study, and this could answer the above-mentioned question. The author has recommended that the selection process be under continuous review. Increasing the percentage of the interview score out of the overall score should be considered. The interview panel should have a set of core questions, previously prepared by a selection committee, which should not be the same as those set by the interview panel. Additional questions that may cover areas such as good health and conduct, as well as, appropriate interpersonal and communication skills may be asked, if necessary. Questions of a personal or discriminatory nature, relating to religion, marital status, sexual preferences, and parenthood should be avoided. A general interview guide approach is recommended, as it is intended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected from each interviewer; this provides more focus than the conversational approach, but still allows a degree of freedom and adaptability in getting information from the interviewer. Adding references for the candidates as a mandatory prerequisite component of the selection process may reflect a professional opinion regarding the personality of the candidates such as acceptance of teamwork, reliability, and responsibility.

 Conclusion



The three components MB BS, General Examination, and Interview, were significant predictors of the overall score. The leading predictor was the 'Interview Score'. The author recommended that the selection process should be under continuous review. A general interview guide approach is recommended to ensure that the same general areas of information are collected from each interviewer. Questions of personal or discriminatory nature should be avoided.

References

1Seraj MA. Update in Anesthesia service and residency program in KSA how far from the target?. Saudi J Anaesth 2009;3:29-34.
2Available from: http://scfhs.org.sa/