Comparison of OSCE performance between 6- and 7-year medical school curricula in Taiwan

BACKGROUND: The year 2013 marks a watershed in the history of medical education in Taiwan. Following Taiwan’s Taskforce of Medical School Curriculum Reform recommendations, the medical school curriculum was reduced from 7 to 6 years. This study aimed to analyze the impact of medical school curriculum reform on medical students’ performance in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the OSCE records at Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Taipei VGH), one of Taiwan’s largest tertiary medical centers, between November 2016 and July 2020. The eligibility criteria were medical students receiving a full one-year clinical sub-internship training at Taipei VGH and in their last year of medical school. All medical students received a mock OSCE-1 at the beginning of their sub-internship, a mock OSCE-2 after six months of training, and a national OSCE at the end of their sub-internship. The parameters for performance in OSCEs included “percentage of scores above the qualification standard” and “percentage of qualified stations.” RESULTS: Between November 2016 and July 2020, 361 undergraduates underwent clinical sub-internship training at Taipei VGH. Among them, 218 were taught under the 7-year curriculum, and 143 were instructed under the 6-year curriculum. Based on baseline-adjusted ANCOVA results, medical students under the 7-year curriculum had a higher percentage of scores above the qualification standard than those under the 6-year curriculum at the mock OSCE-1 (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 33.8% [95% CI 32.0–35.7] vs. 28.2% [95% CI 25.9–30.4], p < 0.001), and mock OSCE-2 (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 89.4% [95% CI 87.4–91.4] vs. 84.0% [95% CI 81.5–86.4], p = 0.001). Moreover, medical students in the 7-year curriculum had a higher percentage of qualified stations in mock OSCE-1 (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 89.4% [95% CI 87.4–91.4] vs. 84.0% [95% CI 81.5–86.4], p = 0.001) and mock OSCE-2 (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 91.9% [95% CI 90.1–93.8] vs. 86.1% [95% CI 83.8–88.3], p = 0.001). After clinical sub-internship training, there were no differences in the percentage of scores above the qualification standard (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 33.5% [95% CI 32.2–34.9] vs. 34.6 [95% CI 32.9–36.3], p = 0.328) and percentage of qualified stations (7-year curriculum vs. 6-year curriculum: 89.4% [95% CI 88.1–90.7] vs. 90.2% [95% CI 88.6–91.8], p = 0.492). CONCLUSIONS: At the beginning of the sub-internship, medical students under the 7-year curriculum had better OSCE performance than those under the 6-year curriculum. After the clinical sub-internship training in Taipei VGH, there was no difference in the national OSCE score between the 6- and 7-year curricula. Our study suggests that clinical sub-internship is crucial for the development of clinical skills and performance in the national OSCE.