The league tables are really weird this year. Personally I wouldn't go much on the stats for student satisfaction and student:staff ratios. The way they ask you about student satisfaction in the surveys is too weird to yield actual results, they sort-of ask you about things they consider to be satisfaction outcomes "did all your lectures happen?" "did you get taught the things in the objectives list?" "were there patients?"... rather than actually "were you satisfied with the experience?".
Student:staff ratios HAVE to be including auxillary staff in there... cleaners, hospital porters, nurses, that man off the street, this guy from the A&E corridor, some research scientist we found in a lab technically connected by some obscure publication to the medical school...
I would rely on the feedback seen on this forum and medical school profiles far more than on the league tables. At the end of the day, Imperial probably is 'better' than Keele (5th in the Guardian!!), but all medical schools are going to teach you the same stuff. There's no truly 'bad' medical school and they're all hard to get into, even the ones which are supposedly 'less good'. The league tables are fairly useless, in my opinion. For instance the fact that Oxford and Cambridge are topping the clinical medicine chart flies in the face of a general migration to London universities. Anyway.