“Languaging” tacit judgment in formal postgraduate assessment: the documentation of ad hoc and summative entrustment decisions

Perspectives on Medical Education - Tập 9 Số 6 - Trang 373-378
A. van Enk, Olle ten Cate1
1Centre for Research and Development of Education, UniversityMedical Centre Utrecht

Tóm tắt

While subjective judgment is recognized by the health professions education literature as important to assessment, it remains difficult to carve out a formally recognized role in assessment practices for personal experiences, gestalts, and gut feelings. Assessment tends to rely on documentary artefacts—like the forms, standards, and policies brought in under competency-based medical education, for example—to support accountability and fairness. But judgment is often tacit in nature and can be more challenging to surface in explicit (and particularly written) form. What is needed is a nuanced approach to the incorporation of judgment in assessment such that it is neither in danger of being suppressed by an overly rigorous insistence on documentation nor uncritically sanctioned by the defense that it resides in a black box and that we must simply trust the expertise of assessors. The concept of entrustment represents an attempt to effect such a balance within current competency frameworks by surfacing judgments about the degree of supervision learners need to care safely for patients. While there is relatively little published data about its implementation as yet, one readily manifest variation in the uptake of entrustment relates to the distinction between ad hoc and summative forms. The ways in which these forms are languaged, together with their intended purposes and guidelines for their use, point to directions for more focused empirical inquiry that can inform current and future uptake of entrustment in competency-based medical education and the responsible and meaningful inclusion of judgment in assessment more generally.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Govaerts M, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Validity in work-based assessment: expanding our horizons. Med Educ. 2013;47(12):1164–74.

Hodges B. Assessment in the post-psychometric era: learning to love the subjective and collective. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):564–8.

Gingerich A. What if the ‘trust’ in entrustable were a social judgement? Med Educ. 2015;49:748–52.

ten Cate O, Regehr G. The power of subjectivity in the assessment of medical trainees. Acad Med. 2019;94(3):333–7.

Colbert CY, French JC, Herring ME, Dannefer EF. Fairness: the hidden challenge for competency-based postgraduate medical education programs. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(5):347–55.

Powell D, Carraccio C. Toward competency-based medical education. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(1):3–5.

Frank JR, Snell LS, Ten Cate O, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638–45.

Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan MK, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2017;39(6):609–16.

Sagasser MH, Fluit CRMG, Van Weel C, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Kramer AWM. How entrustment is informed by holistic judgments across time in a family medicine residency program: an ethnographic nonparticipant observational tudy. Acad Med. 2017;92(6):792–9.

Arnal SG, Burwood S. Tacit knowledge and public accounts. J Philos Educ. 2003;37(3):377–91.

Alofs L, Huiskes J, Heineman MJ, Buis C, et al. User reception of a simple online multisource feedback tool for residents. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(2):57–65.

Buis CAM, Eckenhausen MAW, Ten Cate O. Processing multisource feedback during residency under the guidance of a non-medical coach. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:48–54.

ten Cate O, Hart D, Ankel F, et al. Entrustment decision making in clinical training. Acad Med. 2016;91(2):1–8.

Plake B, Wise L, editors. AERA, APA, NCME. Standards for educational and psychological testing. revised. Washington DC: AERA; 2014.

Gingerich A, Ramlo SE, van der Vleuten CPM, Eva KW, Regehr G. Inter-rater variability as mutual disagreement: identifying raters’ divergent points of view. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2017;22(4):819–38.

O’Dowd E, Lydon S, O’Connor P, Madden C, Byrne D. A systematic review of 7 years of research on entrustable professional activities in graduate medical education, 2011–2018. Med Educ. 2019;53(3):234–49.

Hauer KE. Seeking trust in entrustment: shifting from the planning of entrustable professional activities to implementation. Med Educ. 2019;53(8):752–4.

ten Cate O, Schwartz AJ, Chen HC. Assessing trainees and making entrustment decisions: on the nature and use of entrustment and supervision scales. Acad Med. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003427.

George BC, Teitelbaum EN, Meyerson SL, et al. Reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Zwisch Scale for the assessment of intraoperative performance. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(6):e90–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.06.018.

Bohnen JD, George BC, Williams RG, et al. The feasibility of real-time intraoperative performance assessment with SIMPL (System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning): early experience from a multi-institutional trial. J Surg Educ. 2016;73(6):e118–e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.010.

George BC, Bohnen JD, Schuller MC, Fryer JP. Using smartphones for trainee performance assessment: a SIMPL case study. Surgery. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.09.011.

Gofton WT, Dudek NL, Wood TJ, Balaa F, Hamstra SJ. The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE): a tool to assess surgical competence. Acad Med. 2012;87(10):1401–7.

Apramian T, Cristancho S, Sener A, Lingard L. How do thresholds of principle and preference influence surgeon assessments of learner performance? Ann Surg. 2018;268(2):385–90.

Ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007;82(6):542–7.

Austin JL. How to do things with words. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP; 1975. Marina Sbisà and J.O. Urmson, editors.

Smit MP, de Hoog M, Brackel H, Ten Cate O, Gemke R. A national process to enhance the validity of entrustment decisions for Dutch pediatric residents. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11(4):158–64.

Hatala R, Ginsburg S, Hauer KE, Gingerich A. Entrustment ratings in internal medicine training: capturing meaningful supervision decisions or just another rating? J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(5):740–3.

Weller JM, Misur M, Nicolson S, et al. Can I leave the theatre? a key to more reliable workplace-based assessment. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(6):1083–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeu052.

Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, Dayal A, O’Connor DM, Arora VM. Gender differences in attending physicians’ feedback to residents: a qualitative analysis. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(5):577–85.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Perspectives on Medical Education

Tập 9 Số 6

373-378

Thông tin tác giả