Graphical abstract

Introduction

Background/rationale

Assessments for licensure should reflect the competencies patients expect from physicians, be patient-centered, and consider the evolving nature of medical education [1]. In clinical practice, serious issues often arise from deficiencies in a physician’s communication skills and medical professionalism that do not reflect patients’ expectations. To strengthen the assessment of clinical competence and patient–physician interaction skills, the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) revised its Clinical Skills Test (CST) in its 86th iteration, which was administered in 2021. The exam was redesigned to incorporate standardized patient encounters by replacing discrete technical skill items with essential technical skills integrated into some patient encounter sections [2].

Introducing new assessment systems often leads to curriculum changes. The CST of the KMLE, which was implemented in 2009, had a major impact on medical education in Korea [3], with many schools setting up clinical skills centers and adding clinical skills education, such as procedural skills training and standardized patient exams for third- and fourth-year students. Similarly, after introducing the 2004 clinical skills assessment in the United States, schools expanded assessments using standardized patients and increased financial investment in exam development and patient training [4]. China and Taiwan have also strengthened clinical training, increasing resources for standardized patient training and assessment facilities [5,6].

However, despite the transition to a patient-centered CST in 2021, little research has explored how medical education in Korea has evolved. Before the CST was revised, schools had already improved clinical skills assessments by improving the authenticity of standardized patient scenarios to promote patient-centered care or providing hybrid models to create more realistic clinical situations [7,8].

Objectives

This study investigated potential curricular changes in response to the CST revision, focusing on its impact on medical education curricula and resources. Additionally, it aimed to identify specific aspects of the revised CST that medical schools sought to improve. It elicited insights from key representatives overseeing clinical clerkships, assessments, and training resources at medical schools to address the following research questions: (1) How has the CST revision, with its emphasis on patient-centered care, influenced clinical clerkships, clinical skills assessments, and training resources at medical schools? (2) How do medical schools perceive the need to improve the CST to support student education?

Methods

Ethics statement

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chonnam National University Hospital (IRB no., CNUH-2023-422) approved this study. The researchers informed all participants about the study’s purpose and content and the participants provided consent before completing the survey.

Study design

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study to survey the curricula and educational resources related to the CST at 40 medical schools across Korea. Among the 40 medical schools that provide basic medical education, 38 function solely as a college of medicine, one operates exclusively as a graduate school of medicine, and the remaining institution offers both programs concurrently.

Setting

The researchers asked each representative faculty member of the Regional Consortium for Standardized Patient Programs to distribute the survey to faculty responsible for clinical clerkship, skills education, or assessment at participating schools. We also sent follow-up reminder emails and text messages to encourage completion. The researchers collected responses between December 7, 2023 and January 19, 2024.

Participants

The survey targeted faculty members responsible for clinical clerkships, skills education, or assessment at each medical school.

Variables

The survey covered respondent demographics, institutional details, clinical clerkship, clinical skills assessments, clinical skills centers, and CST improvements. Questions on clinical clerkship explored preliminary student–patient encounters, the integration of CST items into curricula, and additional training for the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) items not currently included in the CST. The items regarding simulated clinical skills assessments addressed exam timing, frequency, composition, administration, resources, assessors, grading, feedback, and retakes. For clinical skills centers, it examined establishment year, size, staffing, and usage. The survey also examined changes in training and assessments since the CST’s introduction in 2009, the patient-centered update in 2021, and its impact on skills centers. The survey invited participants to provide open-ended feedback on CST items and exam administration.

Data sources/measurement

The research team reviewed the 2012 study, “The analysis on the impact of CST in KMLE and strategies for improvement,” conducted by the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy of the Korean Medical Association [9] and used it as a basis for developing the survey, focusing on the curriculum and educational resources related to the 2021 CST revision (Supplement 1). The survey included dichotomous (2-point) and polytomous (5-point) rating scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. For analytical purposes, we reverse-coded the survey’s 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The Cronbach’s α for the 5-point Likert scale measuring the extent of changes in clinical clerkship, clinical performance examination (CPX), and OSCE was 0.699. Response data to survey is available at Dataset 1.

Bias

Researchers minimized selection bias by targeting faculty members most relevant to the CST and working with lead professors at each school within the regional consortia.

Statistical methods

Researchers performed statistical analysis using IBM SPSS ver. 26.0 (IBM Corp.) and summarized data using frequency analysis and descriptive statistics. For comparative analyses, the researchers used the paired t-test for changes in clinical clerkship and skills assessments following the introduction of the CST and patient-centered CST in 2009 and 2021, respectively.

Results

Participants

The study’s participants were the 40 faculty members responsible for clinical clerkships at all 40 medical schools nationwide, with a 100% response rate (Table 1). Most respondents (n=26, 65.0%) were directors of clinical education centers or clinical skills centers. Among these 26 directors, internal medicine was the most common specialty, representing 6 schools (23.1%), followed by emergency medicine, neurology, and surgery, each representing 3 schools (11.5%), and family medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and medical education, each representing 2 schools (7.7%).

Main results

Clinical clerkship

Table 2 shows that 38 schools (95.0%) reported conducting preliminary student–patient encounters in an average of 7.1 courses (range, 2–24 courses). The most common courses for these encounters included internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, family medicine, psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics, emergency medicine, and general surgery. Additionally, 14 schools (35.0%) operated standardized patient programs for educational purposes only, with each school managing an average of 24.1 standardized patients (range, 1–74). Of 40 schools, 39 (97.5%) included CPX items, while 36 (90.0%) included OSCE items.

Table 3 lists the OSCE items that were excluded from the CST but deemed essential since September 2021, indicating that Foley catheter insertion, electrocardiogram interpretation, and aseptic gowning and gloving are the most cited.

Simulated clinical skills assessment

All schools conducted simulated clinical skills assessments in the fourth year (40 schools, 100%), and almost all did so during the third year (38 schools, 95.0%). Thirteen schools (32.5%) conducted assessments in the second year, and 3 schools (7.5%) in the first year (Table 4). Exam formats varied: 16 schools (40.0%) combined 9 CPX and 1 OSCE item in the fourth year, while others used CPX-only, OSCE-only, or mixed formats.

In the fourth year, schools and the consortium jointly administered most assessments (56.8%). Schools mainly funded assessments through their budgets. Standardized patients primarily conducted CPX evaluations, while faculty assessed OSCEs. The most common evaluation method in the fourth year was incorporating assessment into subject credits (69.4%), followed by using them for subject credits or graduation qualification (16.7%) or for pass/fail (11.1%).

Faculty delivered feedback on assessment results mainly through one-on-one sessions with students, written feedback, class-wide feedback, or group discussions, with most schools using 1 or 2 methods, 5 using 3, and 1 employing all 4. Additionally, 38 schools (95.0%) offered remediation for low clinical skills scores, including video feedback, intensive training with standardized patients, counseling, guided learning, retests, or assignments, followed by further feedback (data not in Table 4).

Clinical skills centers

All 40 schools had separate clinical skills centers established between 2001 and 2018. Sixteen schools expanded or renovated their centers between 2008 and 2023. Three schools had 3 clinical skills centers, and 1 had 2. The average center occupied 767.5 m², with sizes ranging from 83.3 to 2,826.4 m². Centers averaged 1.5 full-time and 0.6 contract staff members. Thirty-eight schools reported using clinical skills centers for education. Most trained third- and fourth-year medical students, while 11 trained first-year students, 16 trained second-year students, and 1 school trained pre-medical first-year students (Table 5).

Perceptions of changes in the CST of the KMLE

The perceived impact of the CST on clinical clerkship significantly decreased from 4.03±0.90 in 2009 to 3.54±0.85 in 2021 (P=0.001). Similarly, the scores for CPX also decreased significantly (4.18±0.72 to 3.62±0.88, P=0.002), while that for OSCE exhibited a nonsignificant decrease (4.08±0.86 to 3.80±0.85, P=0.078) (Table 6).

Suggestions for improving the CST of the KMLE

Six schools (26.1%) suggested reintroducing the interstation written test or incorporating medical record assessments to improve the evaluation beyond the checklist-based system. They also recommended aligning CPX items with essential primary care tasks and prioritizing clinical competence for real-world practice over exam-specific performance.

Six schools (26.1%) proposed improving the reliability of the CST by increasing the difficulty and discrimination of exam items, strengthening the reliability and objectivity of standardized patient evaluations, and reassessing the appropriateness of the 12-minute exam duration to ensure adequate evaluation of clinical performance. Three schools (13.0%) suggested reinstating essential OSCE items and expanding the integration of OSCE and CPX items.

Regarding exam administration, 6 schools (35.3%) proposed securing additional exam sites and shortening the overall CST period. In addition, 5 schools (29.4%) suggested increasing the number of available exam opportunities and allowing students greater flexibility in choosing their exam dates (or times). Other suggestions highlighted the difficulty of securing standardized patients for CPX education, especially in rural areas. Additionally, respondents emphasized the need to adjust assessments of the patient–physician relationship to account for students with interpersonal difficulties. They also expressed concerns regarding the CST’s sustainability and effectiveness, given the anticipated increase in exam candidates due to expanding medical school enrollment.

Discussion

Key results

After the patient-centered CST was implemented as part of the KMLE in 2021, nearly all schools in this study implemented preliminary student–patient encounters into their clinical clerkship programs. Clinical skills assessments primarily occur during the third and fourth years of medical school. Post-exam, most schools offer remedial education. All schools have clinical skills centers, with ongoing improvements such as expansions, additional facilities, and increased staffing.

Faculty members overseeing clinical clerkships reported that the extent of changes in clinical education and skill assessment was small following the implementation of the patient-centered CST in 2021. Participants offered several suggestions to improve the CST, including reintroducing the interstation written test or implementing patient record assessments. Other recommendations focused on strengthening the assessments’ validity and reliability.

Interpretation

The increase in preliminary student–patient encounters in core clinical subjects since the adoption of the patient-centered CST in the KMLE marks significant progress. Before the CST, clinical clerkships were largely observational, with such encounters and medical record documentation accounting for only 5% of training [10]. Studies indicate that the CST’s introduction has improved students’ communication skills and attitudes toward patients [3]. Despite the recent discontinuation of the US Step 2 Clinical Skills Assessment, proponents argue that clinical skills assessments remain essential for demonstrating competence and building patient trust [11]. These exams also encourage a greater focus on clinical education, enhancing training effectiveness and promoting learning [1,11].

Although schools predominantly administer clinical skills assessments during the fourth year before the national exam, some schools include simplified practical exams and training for first- and second-year students. Previous studies have reported a focus on third and fourth-year students, with practical exams in the first year at 1 school and in the second year at 7 schools [3]. While more schools now offer early-year exams, reducing OSCE items on the national exam may limit further expansion. However, integrated 6-year medical curricula could enable more balanced clinical skills education across all years, guided by faculty priorities for OSCE content.

Since the adoption of the patient-centered CST in the KMLE, all schools have provided feedback and remedial education through one-on-one sessions, group feedback, and post-exam reviews. Simulated clinical skills assessments aim to evaluate students’ clinical competence and offer feedback to ameliorate individual performance and improve educational curricula [12]. Notably, low communication scores in standardized patient assessments can increase the likelihood of patient complaints in clinical settings [13], emphasizing the need for early and frequent evaluations of communication and interpersonal skills during medical school. Faculty members report fewer changes in clinical skills education and assessment since the patient-centered CST’s implementation compared to the initial CST introduction, likely due to earlier integration of standardized patients, role-playing, and simulated clinical skills assessments before the CST’s introduction [3].

Participants suggested several improvements to increase the impact of the CST on school curricula. These include reinstating interstation written tests and patient record assessments to improve the evaluation of clinical competence, creating scenarios relevant to primary care, and focusing on practical skills required in actual clinical settings. To enhance reliability, faculty members suggested adjusting test difficulty, improving the objectivity of standardized patient evaluations, and conducting the CST across multiple test dates for consistency. Regular training and quality management for standardized patients are necessary to ensure realistic role performance. Reducing checklist items and adding written tests or patient record assessments could facilitate further assessments of critical knowledge and interpretation skills [14,15].

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, it relied on mail surveys, which led to 1 to 3 unanswered items for some questions. To improve clarity, researchers revised the survey 3 times during the initial research. Most unanswered items involved specific details about individual schools, making it challenging to provide detailed descriptions. Second, surveys alone cannot comprehensively analyze changes in the CST of the KMLE curricula across 40 medical schools. Future focus group interviews could offer deeper insights into these changes. Third, the study limited feedback to key representatives for clinical clerkships. Future studies should include students preparing for the CST and residents and faculty members involved in clinical practice education with CST experience. Lastly, it was difficult to compare faculty perceptions of the clinical education and assessment before and after the CST revision concerning institutional size (e.g., admission quotas) and management system (e.g., public versus private institutions). Comparing objective indicators of the curriculum and resources based on institutional size or management system could enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Generalizability

This study makes a significant contribution by examining the current state of medical school curricula and changes prompted by the CST’s shift to a patient-centered format in the KMLE. By gathering input from key clinical clerkship representatives at 40 medical schools nationwide, it offers valuable insights into the evolution of medical education in response to the CST.

Suggestions

As the CST has been in effect for 15 years, analyzing its outcomes and conducting ongoing research involving students, residents, and faculty is essential to ensure its continued development and effectiveness.

Conclusion

The CST of the KMLE has significantly enhanced students’ opportunities for patient interactions and clinical skills education while promoting remedial education through clinical competence assessments and feedback. To ensure that the CST of the KMLE effectively evaluates medical graduates’ clinical performance and provides strong learning motivation for future clinical competence development, continuing efforts to strengthen its validity and reliability are essential.

Supplementary materials

References

• 1. McMahon GT, Tallia AF. Perspective: anticipating the challenges of reforming the United States medical licensing examination. Acad Med 2010;85:453-456. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccbea8 ArticlePubMed
• 2. National Health Licensing Examination Board. Evaluation objectives of National Medical Licensing Examination (Clinical Skills Test) [Internet]. National Health Licensing Examination Board; 2020 [cited 2024 Dec 4]. Available from: https://www.kuksiwon.or.kr/notice/brd/m_51/view.do?seq=2807&itm_seq_1=1&etc1=51#n
• 3. Park HK. The impact of introducing the Korean Medical Licensing Examination clinical skills assessment on medical education. J Korean Med Assoc 2012;55:116-123. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.2.116 Article
• 4. Hauer KE, Hodgson CS, Kerr KM, Teherani A, Irby DM. A national study of medical student clinical skills assessment. Acad Med 2005;8010 Suppl):S25-S29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200510001-00010 ArticlePubMed
• 5. Wang X. Experiences, challenges, and prospects of National Medical Licensing Examination in China. BMC Med Educ 2022;22:349. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03385-9 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 6. Lin CW, Tsai TC, Sun CK, Chen DF, Liu KM. Power of the policy: how the announcement of high-stakes clinical examination altered OSCE implementation at institutional level. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-8 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 7. Park KY, Park HK, Hwang HS, Yoo SH, Ryu JS, Kim JH. Improved detection of patient centeredness in objective structured clinical examinations through authentic scenario design. Patient Educ Couns 2021;104:1094-1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.016 ArticlePubMed
• 8. Seo JH, Oh Y, Im S, Kim DK, Kong HH, Roh H. Authenticity, acceptability, and feasibility of a hybrid gynecology station for the Papanicolaou test as part of a clinical skills examination in Korea. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2018;15:4. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.4 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 9. Park H, Han J, Kim J, Shin J, Kim Y. The analysis on the impact of clinical skills assessment in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination and strategies for improvement [Internet]. Research Institute for Healthcare Policy; 2012 [cited 2024 Dec 4]. Available from: https://rihp.re.kr/bbs/download.php?bo_table=research_report&wr_id=197&no=1&sst=wr_hit&sod=asc&sop=and&page=12
• 10. Yang E, Suh DJ, Lee Y, Lee S, Kim S, Lee E, Chae G, Jo Y, Ahn D. Status of clerkship education and its evaluation in Korean Medical Schools. Korean J Med Educ 2007;19:111-121. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2007.19.2.111 Article
• 11. Tsichlis JT, Del Re AM, Carmody JB. The past, present, and future of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills Examination. Cureus 2021;13:e17157. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.17157 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 12. Hauer KE, Teherani A, Kerr KM, O’sullivan PS, Irby DM. Impact of the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills exam on medical school clinical skills assessment. Acad Med 2006;8110 Suppl):S13-S16. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000236531.32318.02 ArticlePubMed
• 13. Makoul G, Curry RH. The value of assessing and addressing communication skills. JAMA 2007;298:1057-1059. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.9.1057 ArticlePubMed
• 14. Kim JH. The effects and challenges of clinical skills assessment in the Korean Medical License Examination. Korean Med Educ Rev 2013;15:136-143. https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2013.15.3.136 Article
• 15. Smith CM, Gliva-McConvey G, Chapin A. Training SPs for authentic role portrayal. In: Gliva-McConvey G, Nicholas CF, Clark L, editors. Comprehensive healthcare simulation: implementing best practices in standardized patient methodology. Springer International Publishing; 2020. p. 73-104.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Nationwide cross-sectional survey on the necessity of including a clinical skills assessment in the national licensure examination for Doctors of Korean Medicine
  Aram Jeong, Eunbyul Cho, Chan-Young Kwon, Sanghoon Lee, Chungsik Cho, Sangwoo Shin, Min Hwangbo, Dong-Hyeon Kim, Hye-Yoon Lee
  Medicine.2025; 104(45): e45366.     CrossRef