Diversity and inclusion in the health care workforce is fundamentally important to the delivery of health care. There is strong evidence to suggest that an inclusive workforce is able to better meet the needs of a diverse patient population and leads to better patient outcomes [1,2]. According to the latest available data from National Health Service Digital, as of September 2021, the share of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) staff in the National Health Service workforce in England was 24.2%, which is higher than the proportion of BME people in the general population (18%) [3].

One of the current barriers to a diverse workforce is differential attainment. This is defined as “an unexplained variation in results in assessment, training, and recruitment outcomes seen in candidates based on factors other than academic ability when compared to their peers” [4] and is presently observed across several important demographic characteristics, including gender, age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. It is well recognized that Asian and BME trainees are more likely to perform poorly in undergraduate and postgraduate medical examinations [5,6], Annual Review of Competence Progression, and applications for training and consultant posts [7,8]. A BME candidate is independently more likely to fail both part A and Part B of the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons (MRCS) examinations and 10% less likely to be deemed appointable for core surgical training [9,10]. Additionally, only 20% of leadership roles across the surgical colleges are held by BME surgeons [11] despite BME staff making up 46% of the medical workforce [12]. Furthermore, BME surgeons are disproportionately more likely to be referred to the General Medical Council (22% BME vs 17% White) [10].

The current understanding of causes of differential attainment is derived from thematic analyses on the barriers and issues facing BME doctors. There are several recognized factors, including curriculum and examination biases; relationships between BME trainees and trainers; a lack of support and mentorship; differences in social and cultural capital; and feelings of workplace exclusion due to microaggressions, harassment, and discrimination [13-17]. The Royal College of Surgeons of England’s Kennedy Report specifically attributes these factors as potential barriers to the progression of equality and diversity in surgery [10]. This is significant as surgical training has a unique reliance on the “apprenticeship” between the trainee and the trainer, leading to potentially unique differences in the relative effect of the aforementioned factors associated with differential attainment in surgery.

The evidence base for determining differential attainment is generated by smaller scale, qualitative studies, which have demonstrated that the experience of BME students and trainees is a factor contributing to differential attainment. However, smaller-scale studies may only capture a limited insight of the experiences of BME trainees and provide limited appreciation of the heterogeneous mix of different trainees of different ethnicities with a variety of experiences under the BME umbrella. Additionally, there is little published evidence that focuses on assessing the unique elements of the “surgical” experiences of surgical trainees, junior doctors, and medical students. This observational, multicenter study aims to compare both the experiences of surgical training between different ethnicities and the level of attainment reached. This study will ultimately aim to evaluate the relationship between educational and training experiences in surgery and attainment and analyze the role of ethnicity in this relationship.

The ATTAIN (Variation in Experiences and Attainment in Surgery Between Ethnicities of UK Medical Students and Doctors) study aims to answer the following questions:

The following will be included in the study:

The following are excluded from the study:

The survey was developed using the guidance set out in “Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87” [18]. An initial literature review was conducted based on the General Medical Council’s “Evaluating the impact of interventions aimed at addressing variation in progression associated with protected characteristics known as Differential Attainment” [19]. Expert opinion was sought from academic surgeons and medical educationalists (Katherine Woolf, PAB, SF, EI, and SV) to increase content validity. Questions were integrated from previously validated questionnaires, such as the Everyday Discrimination Scale [20] and Maslach Burnout Inventory [21], to increase the construct validity of our survey. A further focus group was conducted to ensure the conceptualization of our constructs matched how respondents thought of them, to increase the face validity of our questionnaire. A pilot questionnaire (N=78) was conducted to ensure reliability and to determine construct validity. This is a first of its kind cross-sectional survey; therefore, we will be using the preliminary survey with results as a comparator to assess reliability of the study. In addition, questions were based on literature and evidence-based theories that underwent peer review from established experts in this field. Our questionnaire will collect demographic data, including questions on protected characteristics such as self-defined ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, and grade. Data on academic attainment will consist of questions detailing a participant’s achievements, including medical school decile, prizes, publications, Annual Review of Competence Progression outcomes, MRCS examination results, and specialty training application outcomes. Surgical experiences will consist of questions around the working relationships participants have with colleagues, experiences of discrimination due to ethnicity, and feelings of burnout.

This study will involve input of medical students and doctors of different grades. An initial survey was distributed at a national medical conference, which yielded information on topics of interest. The preliminary questionnaire was piloted among medical students and junior doctors, who gave qualitative feedback on the design of the study. The finalized questionnaire was distributed to collaborators who gave additional feedback.

Eligible participants will be invited to participate via web-based and in-person recruitment, including but not limited to medical school societies, medical school mailing lists, organizations focused on medical education, social media, surgical colleges, Higher Education England deaneries, and independent professional surgical bodies.

Additionally, snowball sampling will be incorporated, as eligible participants will be invited to collaborate as regional leads prior to the study period, with one collaborator per medical school or deanery. The collaborators will ensure that their medical school or training deanery is engaged with the study; they will be responsible for dissemination of the questionnaire and are recruited specifically to ensure participants are representative of their local population to prevent bias. Eligible regional leads will be acknowledged as collaborative authors under the “ATTAIN Study Group” in future publications. Participants will also be asked to share the questionnaire with other eligible colleagues.

The questionnaire will be hosted and stored in Jisc [22], which is compliant with regulations including General Data Protection Regulation and good clinical practice guidelines (ICH E6). The research team will have access to data determined by the study lead. Audit logs are also available to provide an overview of data access and modifications. Participants will receive a participant information sheet before starting the questionnaire. Participants will give consent for publication on completion of the questionnaire; consent can be rescinded up until completion of the questionnaire for any or no reason. On completion and submission of the questionnaire, consent cannot be withdrawn, as no identifiable data are collected. If the questionnaire is not completed, data will not be collected or stored. The only personal data collected from participants is ethnicity, participants’ names or email addresses will not be collected. Any data collected will only be accessed by the members of the research team at any time. Upon the completion of each questionnaire, all documentation will be stored on a secure server that will be only accessible to the chief investigator, study leads, and statistics team.

The protocol was approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee on September 16, 2021 (19071/004). Participants gave informed consent for their anonymized responses to be used for research purposes, including for analysis, presentation, and publication of data. There will be no compensation type for participation in the study.

One of the potential limitations of this study is the lack of prior validated questionnaires on differential attainment. It could be argued that the topic of “differential attainment” is so large that a single questionnaire would not be an appropriate method able to collect valid or reliable data. We have tried to improve the quality and rigor of our questionnaire by using a well-established methodology for questionnaire construction and incorporating elements from previously validated questionnaires that are valid for our research question. However, bias cannot be eliminated from the study. Sampling bias may occur if recruitment is limited to streams disproportionately used by one group (eg, overusing social media may attract more medical students and junior trainees). This will be minimized by using multiple communication channels, including professional bodies and trainee-led organizations. Additionally, recall bias is unavoidable in sections of the questionnaire where past achievements are recounted.

We also recognize that our research question is heavily focused on ethnicity; however, there are several different factors that are known to be independently associated with differential attainment, including gender and socioeconomic status.

Although these factors may be controlled for in the study, it may be difficult to completely account for nonlinear intersectional relationships between factors. Future research should be considered to explore the relationships between these different factors in more detail.

We envisage that the results of the study will provide us with an advancement in knowledge on factors that correlate to attainment and provide us with greater depth in understanding the link between attainment in surgery and experiences of surgical training. Following the results, we aim to create national guidance for independent surgical bodies to incorporate into the current strategies used to tackle the inequalities and injustices in health care.