Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships.
Clinical Competence
/ standards
Communication
Consensus
Cooperative Behavior
Developing Countries
Educational Measurement
Emergency Medicine
/ education
Fellowships and Scholarships
/ organization & administration
Global Health
Group Processes
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Professionalism
/ education
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Reproducibility of Results
Research
/ organization & administration
Assessment
Curriculum
Evaluation
Fellowships
Global emergency medicine
Global health
Medical education
Postgraduate medical education
Journal
BMC emergency medicine
ISSN: 1471-227X
Titre abrégé: BMC Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968543
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 11 2019
11 11 2019
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
accepted:
31
10
2019
entrez:
13
11
2019
pubmed:
13
11
2019
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees. In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments. There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees.
MAIN BODY
In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments.
CONCLUSION
There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31711428
doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0286-6
pii: 10.1186/s12873-019-0286-6
pmc: PMC6849247
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Références
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2005 Feb;23(1):133-47
pubmed: 15663978
Acad Med. 1995 Jul;70(7 Suppl):S21-8; discussion S29-31
pubmed: 7626157
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Dec;24(6):703-19
pubmed: 20510653
Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Oct;23(5):541-53
pubmed: 21995468
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;9(11):1249-56
pubmed: 12414479
Med Educ. 2005 Mar;39(3):309-17
pubmed: 15733167
Med Teach. 2007 Nov;29(9):855-71
pubmed: 18158655
Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205-14
pubmed: 22364452
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;9(11):1242-8
pubmed: 12414478
CJEM. 2015 Jul;17(4):462-7
pubmed: 26044982
Acad Emerg Med. 1996 Apr;3(4):345-51
pubmed: 8881544
Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-85
pubmed: 21609177
Acad Emerg Med. 1999 Feb;6(2):145-9
pubmed: 10051907
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jul;17(7):748-57
pubmed: 20653590
Acad Med. 2015 Apr;90(4):414-7
pubmed: 25692558
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;9(11):1289-94
pubmed: 12414483
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Nov;9(11):1270-7
pubmed: 12414481
AEM Educ Train. 2017 Sep 11;1(4):269-279
pubmed: 30051044
Postgrad Med J. 2014 Jan;90(1059):3-7
pubmed: 23964131
Ann Glob Health. 2015 Mar-Apr;81(2):239-47
pubmed: 26088089