Sex differences in fitness to practise test scores: a cohort study of GPs.

Background: Tests of competence are written and clinical assessments taken by doctors under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) who have significant performance concerns. Male doctors on average perform more poorly in clinical assessments than female doctors, and are more likely to be sanctioned. It is unclear why.

Aim: To examine sex differences in the tests of competence assessment scores of GPs under investigation by the GMC, compared with GPs not under investigation, and whether scores mediate any relationship between sex and sanction likelihood.

Design And Setting: Retrospective cohort study of GPs' administrative tests of competence data.

Method: Analysis of variance was undertaken to compare written and clinical tests of competence performance by sex and GP group (under investigation versus volunteers). Path analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between sex, written and clinical tests of competence performance, and investigation outcome.

Results: On the written test, female GPs under investigation outperformed male GPs under investigation (Cohen's = 0.28, = 0.01); there was no sex difference in the volunteer group (Cohen's = 0.02, = 0.93). On the clinical assessment, female GPs outperformed male GPs in both groups (Cohen's = 0.61, <0.0001). A higher clinical score predicted remaining on the UK medical register without a warning or sanction, with no independent effect of sex controlling for assessment performance.

Conclusion: Female GPs outperform male GPs on clinical assessments, even among GPs with generally very poor performance. Male GPs under investigation may have particularly poor knowledge. Further research is required to understand potential sex differences in doctors who take tests of competence and how these impact on sex differences in investigation outcomes.