To implement the “synergistic development of five educations” and address the existing issues in the current comprehensive quality evaluation system for medical postgraduate students (original system), this article constructs a new comprehensive quality evaluation system (new system) from a multidimensional collaborative perspective. Through the trinity framework of “basic evaluation, incentive evaluation, and negative list”, it explores the application effects of the new system in assessing the comprehensive quality evaluation of medical graduate students. The research shows that the operational efficiency of the new system has significantly improved, outperforming the original system in terms of student participation rates, evaluation effectiveness, and feedback rates. This article summarizes the experience of the evaluation system reform and proposes future prospects, offering valuable insights for the reform of medical education evaluation.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the current implementation status and reform progress of the comprehensive quality evaluation system for medical postgraduates. MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI databases, and official university websites were electronically searched to collect relevant policy documents and academic literature from inception to November 30, 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and cross-checked the results. A qualitative inductive approach was used to systematically review and compare the frameworks, indicators, and applications of the evaluation systems. ResultsA total of 23 evaluation documents from domestic medical universities and 16 relevant foreign documents/literature were included. The domestic evaluation systems showed a trend towards multi-dimensionality, categorization, and process-orientation, incorporating diverse methods such as subjective assessment, representative work evaluation, and single-veto mechanisms. Foreign evaluation systems were competency-oriented, focusing on core abilities like medical knowledge, clinical skills, professionalism, and communication. They widely employed methods such as objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), multi-source feedback, portfolio assessment, and multiple mini-interviews (MMI), with increasing attention to the application of information technology. ConclusionCurrent reforms have made progress in diversifying evaluation dimensions and methods. However, challenges remain, including subjective evaluation standards, an imbalance between research output and comprehensive quality assessment, insufficient stakeholder participation, and inadequate attention to societal needs and individual exceptional achievements.
