Exploring How the New Entrustable Professional Activity Assessment Tools Affect the Quality of Feedback Given to Medical Oncology Residents.
Competency-based medical education
Faculty perspectives
Feedback
Medical oncology
Resident perspectives
Workplace-based assessments
Journal
Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education
ISSN: 1543-0154
Titre abrégé: J Cancer Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8610343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
4
1
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
4
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The post-graduate medical programs at Queen's University transitioned to a competency-based medical education framework on July 1, 2017. In advance of this transition, the Medical Oncology program participated in a pilot of six Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) focused workplace-based assessment (WBA) tools with faculty and residents. The purpose of this sequential explanatory mixed method study was to determine the extent to which these WBAs provided quality feedback for residents. The WBAs were introduced into daily clinical practice and, once completed, were collected by the research team. A resident focus group (n = 4) and faculty interviews (n = 5) were also conducted. Focus group and interview data were analyzed using an emergent thematic analysis. Data from the completed assessment tools were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and a literature-informed framework developed to assess the quality of feedback. Six main findings emerged: Verbal feedback is preferred over written; providing both written and verbal feedback is important; effective feedback was seen as timely, specific, and actionable; the process was conceptualized as coaching rather than high stakes; there were logistical concerns about the WBAs, and additional clarification about the WBA tools is needed. This study provides insight into faculty and resident perceptions of quality feedback and the potential for WBA tools to assist in providing effective feedback to residents as we shift to competency-based medical education in Canada. Our results suggest the need for additional faculty development around the use of the tools, and their intended role, and the elements of quality feedback.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30604387
doi: 10.1007/s13187-018-1456-z
pii: 10.1007/s13187-018-1456-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
165-177Références
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 May;21(2):455-73
pubmed: 26003590
Med Educ. 2006 Aug;40(8):746-9
pubmed: 16869919
Med Educ. 2014 Jul;48(7):713-23
pubmed: 24909533
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638-45
pubmed: 20662574
Acad Med. 2015 Dec;90(12):1698-706
pubmed: 26200584
Acad Psychiatry. 2016 Apr;40(2):377-9
pubmed: 26108392
Med Teach. 2017 Dec;39(12):1245-1249
pubmed: 28927332
Med Teach. 2006 Sep;28(6):497-526
pubmed: 17074699
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1067-73
pubmed: 23807096
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1923-58
pubmed: 21112623
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1378-81
pubmed: 27457308
Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):309-17
pubmed: 15733167
Med Educ. 2000 Jul;34(7):535-44
pubmed: 10886636
Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-14
pubmed: 21345060
Acad Med. 2002 May;77(5):361-7
pubmed: 12010689