You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 69, Issue 8
  • Trainee concerns regarding the Specialty Certificate Examination: results of a British Thoracic Society national survey: MRCP (UK) response

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Trainee concerns regarding the Specialty Certificate Examination: results of a British Thoracic Society national survey: MRCP (UK) response
  1. John Mucklow1,
  2. Andrew Elder1,
  3. Louise Wheaton1,
  4. Jim MacFarlane2,
  5. Adam Hill3
  1. 1 MRCP (UK) Central Office, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
  2. 2 Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
  3. 3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr John Mucklow, MRCP (UK) Central Office, Royal College of Physicians, 11 St Andrew's Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4LE, UK; john.mucklow{at}mrcpuk.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205180

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.

    We read with interest the results of the British Thoracic Society's national survey related to the specialty certificate examination (SCE) in respiratory medicine.1 We are pleased that trainees felt the SCE to be appropriate in difficulty, content and duration, and that our test centres were fit for purpose. This correlates with the results of the routine surveys we run after each examination, which also ask about quality of examination material and administration. We regularly monitor this important feedback …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to and reviewed the content of the submission. AE is responsible for the overall content of the submission as guarantor.

    • Competing interests None.

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

    Linked Articles