The HCMC University of Medicine and Pharmacy (UMP HCMC) has recently added an interview round to its residency admissions, which is expected to help select the right people for the right fields, accurately assessing candidates' abilities and their suitability for medical specialties.

Why did UMP HCMC reform its postgraduate admission methods, particularly for medical residents?

Resident doctor training in Vietnam is designed to cultivate the elite of the medical profession, those who will become the core workforce of the future healthcare system. Their study and training are already extremely demanding and stressful, so admission requirements must be precise and appropriate. This is why we have introduced changes in the admissions method, aiming to select candidates who not only have strong competence but also the aptitude to pursue their chosen specialty, while creating opportunities for sustainable career development.

In many countries, resident doctor admissions have long included interviews, not merely to test knowledge, but more importantly to help admissions committees assess whether candidates are truly suited to the specialties they apply for.

Is applying interviews in resident doctor admissions a new step in Vietnam, and how does the university ensure fairness and objectivity?

Previously, the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at HCMC applied interviews in resident doctor admissions.

The biggest challenge of interviews is ensuring objectivity and limiting external influences. Therefore, the university has developed a clear process and scoring rubric and provided thorough training for the admissions committee before implementation.

When properly conducted with fairness ensured, interviews can be effective in selecting resident doctors who match their capabilities and strengths, laying a foundation for long-term professional development.

What are the current working hour regulations for resident doctors at the university?

The work of resident doctors is extremely demanding, in Vietnam as well as in any country. At the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at HCMC, resident doctors work approximately 62–64 hours per week. For the remaining time, they return to the university to supplement their knowledge. Although this is lower than in some countries, it still reflects the high intensity of residency training, requiring doctors to work and study continuously.

Resident doctors are essentially “training doctors,” meaning they have already graduated as doctors but are undergoing specialized training. Therefore, support policies must be appropriate, ensuring both their livelihood and successful completion of training.

Could you clarify what you mean by “doctors in training”?

They are already qualified doctors but are continuing advanced training. Therefore, they must be paid. However, currently, resident doctors in Vietnam must pay tuition fees and do not receive salaries, which is both unreasonable and unfair.

If tuition were not collected, universities would not be able to sustain training operations. Thus, tuition must still be charged. However, in principle, if conditions allow, the State should cover both tuition and salaries for resident doctors. A more feasible solution is for resident doctors to receive salaries from hospitals. They could use this income to pay tuition, thereby reducing the burden. From the university’s side, support can only come in the form of scholarships or other programs.

Ideally, in addition to receiving salaries, resident doctors should be granted provisional practice licenses immediately upon admission. Without permission to practice on patients, they cannot learn effectively. The essence of medical training is clinical learning, which requires direct patient contact and care.

So, two issues need to be addressed: ensuring minimum salaries and granting provisional practice licenses for resident doctors. These are necessary conditions to make residency training substantive and effective.

Currently, 13 institutions, including private universities, train resident doctors with varying curricula and content. What does this imply for quality assurance nationwide?

In my view, this raises an important question of whether training programs should be standardized nationwide. The answer is that they absolutely should be standardized.

Each university may retain flexibility in teaching methods and organization, but there must be a common competency standard so that every graduate, regardless of institution, meets the same benchmark. This would ensure consistent training quality nationwide and prevent large disparities among institutions.

This framework should include standardized learning outcomes for resident doctors by specialty, ensuring that all graduates meet consistent standards in both professional knowledge and clinical skills. Standardization would not only enhance training quality but also create fairness, transparency, and trust within the national medical education system.

Le Huyen