Internationally, medical schools have long used a variety of approaches to develop hybrid Problem based learning (PBL) curricula. However, Team-based learning (TBL), has gained recent popularity in medical education. TBL maintains the advantages of small group teaching and learning, but in contrast to Problem-based learning (PBL), does not require large numbers of tutors. In 2016, TBL was introduced to Year 1 of the Sydney Medical Program (SMP).This study sought to compare students’ perceptions of using TBL in place of PBL. Year 1 students (n = 169) completed three PBL and three TBL sessions during one of the following teaching blocks: Musculoskeletal (n = 56), Respiratory (n = 59) or Cardiovascular (n = 54). Student feedback following completion of each block of teaching was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open ended items. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. In total, 144/169 (85%) of participants completed a questionnaire regarding PBL, and 152/169 (90%) completed a similar questionnaire regarding TBL. The students found positive aspects of their TBL experience to include the smaller group size, the use of readiness assurance tests, immediate feedback from senior clinicians, and time efficiency. In PBL, students reported that variable expertise of tutors; limited direction; and large group size hindered their learning. Overwhelmingly, students preferred TBL over PBL, as the optimal teaching strategy. Students found the structure and format of the TBL sessions more conducive to learning, engagement and participation than PBL sessions. Although the use of TBL required an instructional approach, needing direction from the tutor, it remained student-centred, generating a range of positive outcomes. Study results provide confidence to change from PBL to TBL within Year 1 and Year 2 of the SMP in 2017.

Assessment for selection in medicine and the health professions should follow the same quality assurance processes as in-course assessment. The literature on selection is limited and is not strongly theoretical or conceptual. For written testing, there is evidence of the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) for medical school and licensing examination performance. There is also evidence for the predictive validity of grade point average, particularly in combination with MCAT for graduate entry but little evidence about the predictive validity of school leaver scores. Interviews have not been shown to be robust selection measures. Studies of multiple mini-interviews have indicated good predictive validity and reliability. Of other measures used in selection, only the growing interest in personality testing appears to warrant future work. Widening access to medical and health professional programmes is an increasing priority and relates to the social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools. While traditional selection measures do discriminate against various population groups, there is little evidence on the effect of non-traditional measures in widening access. Preparation and outreach programmes show most promise. In summary, the areas of consensus for assessment for selection are small in number. Recommendations for future action focus on the adoption of principles of good assessment and curriculum alignment, use of multi-method programmatic approaches, development of interdisciplinary frameworks and utilisation of sophisticated measurement models. The social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools demands that social inclusion, workforce issues and widening of access are embedded in the principles of good assessment for selection.

Background: Although challenging to integrate within university curricula, evidence suggests that interprofessional education (IPE) positively impacts communication and teamwork skills in the workplace. The nature of Team-based learning (TBL) lends itself to interprofessional education, with the capacity to foster a culture of collaboration among health professional students. Our study was designed to pilot an interprofessional ‘back pain’ TBL module for physiotherapy and medical students, and to explore their experience of the TBL process, using the conceptual framework of ‘knowledge reconsolidation’ to discuss our finding. Methods: Three hundred and eleven students participated in the TBL session: 222/277 (80%) of Year 1 medical students and 89/89 (100%) of Year 2 physiotherapy students. Students completed one interprofessional Musculoskeletal Sciences TBL session on the topic of ‘back pain’. A questionnaire including closed and open-ended items, was distributed to students immediately following completion of the TBL session. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to code and categorise qualitative data into themes. Pre-class quiz scores were compared between the groups using a one-way between groups Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with Tukeys Post Hoc test. Results: In total, 117/311 (38%) of participants completed the questionnaire. Both medicine and physiotherapy students appreciated the opportunity to learn about the curriculum of another healthcare discipline, and their scope of practice; gain multiple perspectives on a patient case from different disciplines; and recognised the importance of multidisciplinary teams in patient care. Students felt having an interprofessional team of facilitators who provided immediate feedback helped to consolidate student learning and promoted clinical reasoning. An analysis of variance revealed no difference between Physiotherapy and Medical students’ pre-class quiz scores. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the small group and task-focused characteristics of TBL provided a student-centred teaching strategy to support the achievement of interprofessional learning goals. Students valued their interactions with other students from a different professional degree, the opportunity to problem solve together, and learn different perspectives on a patient case. The pre-class quiz results demonstrate that both groups of students had a comparative level of prior knowledge to be able to work together on the in-class activities.

Selection and recruitment into healthcare education and practice is a key area of interest for educators with significant developments in research, policy, and practice in recent years. This updated consensus statement, developed through a multi-stage process, examines future opportunities and challenges in selection and recruitment. There is both a gap in the literature around and a compelling case for further theoretical and empirical literature to underpin the development of overall selection philosophes and policies and their enactment. More consistent evidence has emerged regarding the quality of different selection methods. Approaches to selection are context-dependent, requiring the consideration of an institution’s philosophy regarding what they are trying to achieve, the communities it purports to serve, along with the system within which they are used. Diversity and globalization issues continue to be critically important topics. Further research is required to explore differential attainment and explain why there are substantial differences in culturally acceptable ways of approaching diversity and widening access. More sophisticated evaluation approaches using multi-disciplinary theoretical frameworks are required to address the issues. Following a discussion of these areas, 10 recommendations are presented to guide future research and practice and to encourage debate between colleagues across the globe.