Cited by 67Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

The use of mini-CEX in UK foundation training six years following its introduction: Lessons still to be learned and the benefit of formal teaching regarding its utility

Weston, Philip S. J., Smith, Caroline A.·2014·Medical Teacher

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) is a widely used tool with a strong theoretical basis. It was introduced to UK foundation training in 2005. AIMS: To assess current experiences, opinions and attitudes towards mini-CEX amongst foundation doctors, and explore what factors underpin these. METHODS: Data were collected from foundation trainees via an on-line questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety-eight per cent of respondents had used mini-CEX during FY1, however, only 32% had ever received formal teaching regarding its use. In terms of understanding of the purpose of mini-CEX, only 30% of trainees commented on there being a formative aspect or requirement for feedback. The majority of trainees did not feel that mini-CEX was a useful part of their training. The main themes were the poor attitude and understanding of assessors and difficulties finding sufficient time. However, those who had received formal teaching as students regarding the use of mini-CEX were significantly more likely as postgraduates to find it beneficial (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: A more concerted effort to educate trainees and assessors regarding the correct use of mini-CEX will enhance its educational value. Increased education during undergraduate training regarding use of formative assessment may lead to more effective utilisation in the postgraduate setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/0142159x.2013.836267

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weston, P. S. J., & Smith, C. A.
Affiliations
  • St George's Hospital (GB)
  • Charing Cross Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Weston, Philip S. J.
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2013-10-08
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
155-163
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2125094810
Cited by
67
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6
FWCI
7.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
Mini-CEX, foundation training, formative assessment, trainee attitudes, feedback, undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Graduate, Educational Measurement, Feedback, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Confidence Intervals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review