Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Impact of removal of points for additional educational achievements: a student’s perspective on the recent UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) Statement for 2023 Entry
  1. Rucira Ooi,
  2. Setthasorn Zhi Yang Ooi
  1. Centre for Medical Education (C4ME), Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mr Setthasorn Zhi Yang Ooi, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK; ooisz{at}

Statistics from

The UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) has implemented a point scoring system in the past few years to rank graduating medical students for competitive Foundation Programme rotations.1 The system calculates a total of 100 points - 50 allocated to the Situational Judgement Test (SJT) and the remaining 50 points as an Educational Performance Measure.1 Of these 50 points, 7 points are allocated for additional Educational Achievements (EA): 2 of the 50 points awarded are allocated for PubMed-citable publications and 5 allocated for additional degrees obtained.1 Consequently, this scoring system has incentivised undergraduate research and the pursuit of an additional degree. However, a recent statement released by the UKFPO, on the 30 November 2020, on the removal of points for additional EA has raised discussion among medical students.2 This letter aims to explore the impact of the removal of points on publications and additional EA on the Foundation Programme for 2023 entry.

We find that there are multiple pros and cons to current medical students that need to be addressed moving forward. What does this mean for medical students who are applying for the 2023 entry of the UKFPO?


  1. This levels the playing …

View Full Text


  • RO and SZYO are joint first authors.

  • Twitter @RuciraOoi, @SetthasornOoi

  • RO and SZYO contributed equally.

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.

  • Contributors RO and SZYO contributed to the design of the work, and the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. RO was involved in drafting the work and SZYO was involved in revising it critically for important intellectual content. RO and SZYO have provided final approval for the letter to be published. RO and SZYO agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. RO and SZYO contributed equally to this paper.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.