Summary This study examined how 116 cases of residents, dismissed from their training programmes, who challenged the decision of the program director before the conciliation board (2011-2020), differed by specialty group in duration of training at dismissal, gender and type and number of insufficient CanMEDS competency domains. Research Questions Which competencies were deemed insufficient in residents who disputed dismissal? Were all these competencies equally decisive? Did these competencies differ by type of specialty? Framework CanMEDS competencies Methods Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of residents’ case characteristics Sources 116 conciliation board (RGS-GC) cases from 6 types of specialties (internal medicine, general medicine, psychiatry, surgery, diagnostics, and other specialties), in comparison with information from the capacity body about gender characteristics of all residents registered Data Description (Quantative Data) Coding (file 2A Data Excel Ano) Password for protection against changes: CanMEDS Identifier: Random number Group of Specialty: Internal Medicine (1), Surgery (2), Diagnostic (3), Other (4), General Medicine (5), Psychiatry (6), See 2A Consort pdf Year of training at time of dismissal: Number between (0-6) 2 decimal max Gender: Male=1/Female=0 CanMEDS: 1=insufficient/0=sufficient, Professionalism, Communication, Collaboration, Management, Medical Expertise, Scholar, Health advocacy, Number of insufficient CanMEDS competencies: Number between (0-7)

Excel Datafile: 2A Residents CB Registered as Specialist at RGS Table 1 and 2 Password for protection against changes: RGS This file contains the requested information from the RGS (case numbers correspond with table of cases p. 281 thesis) and the answer from the RGS on 29th November 2022 (under E) and the calculations (under F, 16, 17 and second table excluding community-based specialties).