Exploring stakeholder perspectives regarding the implementation of competency-based medical education: a qualitative descriptive study.

Introduction: Competency-based medical education (CBME) offers perceived advantages and benefits for postgraduate medical education (PGME) and the training of competent physicians. The purpose of our study was to gain insights from those involved in implementing CBME in two residency programs to inform ongoing implementation practices. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study to explore the perspectives of multiple stakeholders involved in the implementation of CBME in two residency programs (the first cohort) to launch the Royal College's Competence by Design model at one Canadian university. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants across six stakeholder groups including residents, department chairs, program directors, faculty, medical educators, and program administrators. Data collection and analysis were iterative and reflexive to enhance the authenticity of the results. Results: The participants' perspectives organized around three key themes including: a) contextualizing curriculum and assessment practices with educational goals of CBME, b) coordinating new administrative requirements to support implementation, and c) adaptability toward a competency-based program structure, each with sub-themes. Conclusion: By eliciting the perspectives of different stakeholder groups who experienced the implementation processes, we developed a common understanding regarding facilitators and challenges for program directors, program administrators and educational leaders across PGME. Results from our study contribute to the scholarly conversation regarding the key aspects related to CBME implementation and serve to inform its ongoing development and application in various educational contexts.

Introduction: La formation médicale axée sur les compétences (FMAC) offre des avantages et des bénéfices perçus pour les études médicales postdoctorales et la formation de médecins compétents. Le but de notre étude était d'apprendre des personnes impliquées dans l'implantation de la FMAC dans deux programmes de résidence afin d'informer les pratiques de mise en œuvre en cours. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une étude qualitative descriptive pour explorer les perspectives de plusieurs parties prenantes impliquées dans la mise en œuvre de la FMAC dans deux programmes de résidence (la première cohorte) visant à mettre en place le modèle Compétence par conception du Collège royal dans une université canadienne. Des entrevues semi-structurés ont été menés auprès de 17 participants issus de six groupes de parties prenantes, notamment des résidents, des chefs de département, des directeurs de programme, des membres de la faculté, des éducateurs médicaux et des administrateurs de programme. La collecte et l'analyse des données étaient itératives et réflexives afin d'enrichir l'authenticité des résultats. Résultats: Les perspectives des participants se sont organisées autour de trois thèmes clés, à savoir : a) contextualiser les pratiques de curriculum et d'évaluation avec les objectifs d'apprentissage de la FMAC, b) coordonner les nouvelles exigences administratives pour soutenir la mise en œuvre, et c) s'adapter à une structure de programme axée sur les compétences, chacun avec des sous-thèmes. Conclusion: En recueillant les perspectives des différents groupes de parties prenantes ayant vécu les processus de mise en œuvre, nous avons développé une compréhension commune des facilitateurs et des défis pour les directeurs de programme, les administrateurs de programme et les leaders éducatifs dans la formation médicale postdoctorale. Les résultats de notre étude contribuent à la conversation savante concernant les aspects clés liés à la mise en œuvre de la FMAC et servent à informer son développement et son application en cours dans différents contextes éducatifs.

If we assess, will they learn? Students' perspectives on the complexities of assessment-for-learning.

Introduction: Assessment can positively influence learning, however designing effective assessment-for-learning interventions has proved challenging. We implemented a mandatory assessment-for-learning system comprising a workplace-based assessment of non-medical expert competencies and a progress test in undergraduate medical education and evaluated its impact. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with year-3 and 4 medical students at McGill University to explore how the assessment system had influenced their learning in year 3. We conducted theory-informed thematic analysis of the data. Results: Eleven students participated, revealing that the assessment influenced learning through several mechanisms. Some required little student engagement (i.e., feed-up, test-enhanced learning, looking things up after an exam). Others required substantial engagement (e.g., studying for tests, selecting raters for quality feedback, using feedback). Student engagement was moderated by the perceived credibility of the system and of the costs and benefits of engagement. Credibility was shaped by students' goals-in-context: becoming a good doctor, contributing to the healthcare team, succeeding in assessments. Discussion: Our assessment system failed to engage students enough to leverage its full potential. We discuss the inherent flaws and external factors that hindered student engagement. Assessment designers should leverage easy-to-control mechanisms to support assessment-for-learning and anticipate significant collaborative work to modify learning cultures.

Introduction: L'évaluation peut influencer positivement l'apprentissage mais la conception de dispositifs d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage efficaces s'avère difficile. Nous avons implanté en formation prédoctorale un système obligatoire d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage comprenant une évaluation en milieu clinique des compétences transversales et un test de rendement progressif, puis évalué ses effets. Méthodes: Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-dirigés avec des étudiants en troisième et quatrième années de médecine à l'Université McGill pour explorer la manière dont le système d'évaluation avait influencé leur apprentissage au cours de la troisième année. Nous avons effectué une analyse thématique, informée par la théorie, des données. Résultats: Onze étudiants ont participé. Les résultats indiquent que l'évaluation a influencé leur apprentissage par le biais de plusieurs mécanismes différents. Certains d'entre eux nécessitaient une implication faible de la part de l'étudiant, comme l'identification des objectifs à atteindre (feed-up), l'apprentissage amélioré par les tests, la recherche d'informations après un examen. D'autres exigeaient une implication importante (par exemple, étudier pour les tests, sélectionner les évaluateurs pour obtenir une rétroaction de qualité, mettre à profit la rétroaction). L'implication des étudiants était modulée par leur perception des avantages et des inconvénients de s'impliquer, et de la crédibilité du système. Cette dernière était influencée par les objectifs-en-contexte des étudiants: devenir un bon médecin, contribuer à l'équipe soignante, réussir les épreuves d'évaluation. Discussion: Notre système d'évaluation n'a pas réussi à impliquer suffisamment les étudiants que pour réaliser son potentiel. Nous abordons les défauts inhérents au système ainsi que les facteurs externes qui ont entravé l'implication des apprenants. Pour implanter efficacement un dispositif d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage, les concepteurs d'évaluations devraient optimiser les mécanismes qui sont faciles à contrôler et être prêts à s'investir dans un important travail de collaboration pour changer les cultures d'apprentissage.

What are essential laparoscopic skills these days? Results of the SAGES Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) Committee technical skills survey.

INTRODUCTION: The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) program tests basic knowledge and skills required to perform laparoscopic surgery. Educational experiences in laparoscopic training and development of associated competencies have evolved since FLS inception, making it important to review the definition of fundamental laparoscopic skills. The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) assigned an FLS Technical Skills Working Group to characterize technical skills used in basic laparoscopic surgery in current practice contexts and their possible application to future FLS tests. METHODS: A group of subject matter experts defined an inventory of 65 laparoscopic skills using a Nominal Group Technique. From these, a survey was developed rating these items for importance, frequency of use, and priority for testing for FLS certification. This survey was distributed to SAGES members, recent recipients of FLS certification, and members of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery (APDS). Results were collected using a secure web-based survey platform. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 1742 surveys. Of these, 1143 comprised results for post-residency participants who performed advanced procedures. Seventeen competencies were identified for FLS testing prioritization by determining the proportion of respondents who identified them of highest priority, at median (50th percentile) of the maximum survey scale rating. These included basic peritoneal access, laparoscope and instrument use, tissue manipulation, and specific problem management skills. Sixteen could be used to show appropriateness of the domain construct by confirmatory factor analysis. Of these 8 could be characterized as manipulative tasks. Of these 5 mapped to current FLS tasks. CONCLUSIONS: This survey-identified competencies, some of which are currently assessed in FLS, with a high level of priority for testing. Further work is needed to determine if this should prompt consideration of changes or additions to the FLS technical skills test component.

The entrustable professional activities of laparoscopic surgery: moving toward an integrated training model.

BACKGROUND: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) provide the opportunity to integrate multiple competencies into meaningful units that facilitate curriculum development and assessment design. As part of the process of reviewing and enhancing the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic of Surgery (FLS) program, we used the concept of EPAs to create a framework of reference that articulates a contemporary definition of Laparoscopic Surgery (LS). METHODS: The framework of reference of LS was created with data gathered from a literature review and during series of educational retreats with subject matter experts (SMEs). Various activities were implemented during these retreats to develop the LS EPAs, their constitutive competencies, and related observable behaviors. RESULTS: Ten EPAs and associated competency descriptors (articulated as observable behaviors) specific to LS were identified. In addition, knowledge areas were associated to each EPA. DISCUSSION: A comprehensive list of EPAs for LS were identified. These EPAs will be used in the development and update of the FLS program. Further, they can be used to guide the development of curriculum, clinical teaching, and assessment in any surgical program with a laparoscopic training component. They are applicable to any level of training by defining the expected observable behaviors associated with a given level of expertise. These fundamental aspects of LS provide a common framework of reference across different surgical specialties.

An argument-based validation study of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) program.

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Laparoscopy Surgery (FLS) program was launched over 15 years ago. Since then, there has been an exponential rise in advancements of laparoscopy and its uses. In response, we conducted an argument-based validation study of FLS. The purpose of this paper is to exemplify this approach to validation for surgical education researchers using FLS as an illustrative case. METHODS: The argument-based approach to validation involves three key actions: (1) developing interpretation and use arguments; (2) research; and (3) building a validity argument. Drawing from the validation study of FLS each step is exemplified. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative data sources from the FLS validity examination study provided evidence that both supported claims, but also generated backing for rebuttals. Some of the key findings were synthesized in a validity argument to illustrate its structure. DISCUSSION: The argument-based validation approach described numerous advantages over other validation approaches: (1) it is endorsed by the foundational documents in assessment and evaluation research; (2) its specific language of claims, inferences, warrants, assumptions and rebuttals provides a systematic and unified way to communicate both the processes and outcomes of validation; and (3) the use of logic reasoning in building the validity document clearly delineates the relationship between evidence and the inferences made to support desired uses and interpretations from assessments.