Perspectives on Medical Education

None

Introduction Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have been applied differently in many postgraduate medical education (PGME) programmes, but the reasons for and the consequences of this variation are not well known. Our objective was to investigate how the uptake of EPAs is influenced by the workplace environment and to what extent the benefits of working with EPAs are at risk when the uptake of EPAs is influenced. This knowledge can be used by curriculum developers who intend to apply EPAs in their curricula. Method For this qualitative study, we selected four PGME programmes: General Practice, Clinical Geriatrics, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and Radiology & Nuclear Medicine. A document analysis was performed on the national training plans, supported by the AMEE Guide for developing EPA-based curricula and relevant EPA-based literature. Interviews were undertaken with medical specialists who had specific involvement in the development of the curricula. Content analysis was employed and illuminated the possible reasons for variation in the uptake of EPAs. Results An important part of the variation in the uptake of EPAs can be explained by environmental factors, such as patient population, the role of the physician in the health-care system, and the setup of local medical care institutions where the training programme takes place. The variation in uptake of EPAs is specifically reflected in the number and breadth of the EPAs, and in the way the entrustment decision is executed within the PGME programme.  

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.