Inconsistently reporting post-licensure EPA specifications in different clinical professions hampers fidelity and practice translation: a scoping review.
Clinical education
Entrustable professional activities
Interprofessional
Medicine
Postgraduate
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2023
24 May 2023
Historique:
received:
21
12
2022
accepted:
16
05
2023
medline:
26
5
2023
pubmed:
25
5
2023
entrez:
24
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are defined units of professional practice entrusted to professionals once they have attained the specific competencies required to complete the end-to-end task. They provide a contemporary framework for capturing real-world clinical skillsets and integrating clinical education with practice. Our scoping review question was: how are post-licensure EPAs reported in peer reviewed literature, in different clinical professions? We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, Arksey and O'Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Searching ten electronic databases returned 1622 articles, with 173 articles included. Data extracted included demographics, EPA discipline, titles and further specifications. All articles were published between 2007-2021 across sixteen country contexts. The majority were from North America (n = 162, 73%) describing medical sub-specialty EPAs (n = 126, 94%). There were comparably few EPA frameworks reported in clinical professions other than medicine (n = 11, 6%). Many articles reported only EPA titles without further explanation and limited content validation. The majority did not include information about the EPA design process. Few EPAs and frameworks were reported according to all the recommended EPA attributes. There was unclear distinction between specialty-specific EPAs and those that could be useful across disciplines. Our review highlights the large volume of EPAs reported in post-licensure medicine, including the volume disparity compared to other clinical professions. Basing our enquiry upon existing guidelines for EPA attributes and features, our experience in conducting the review and our primary finding demonstrated heterogeneity of EPA reporting according to these specifications. To promote EPA fidelity, and quality appraisal, and to reduce interpretation subjectivity, we advocate: diligently reporting EPA attributes and features; including reference or citation to EPA design and content validity information; and considering distinguishing EPAs as specialty-specific or transdisciplinary. A large volume of post-licensure EPAs were identified in medicine relative to other clinical professions. EPA specifications were absent or variously reported in the literature, risking ambiguous interpretation. The authors recommend that future EPAs are reported with reference to established and evolving construct recommendations, which is integral to concept fidelity and translation to practice and education.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are defined units of professional practice entrusted to professionals once they have attained the specific competencies required to complete the end-to-end task. They provide a contemporary framework for capturing real-world clinical skillsets and integrating clinical education with practice. Our scoping review question was: how are post-licensure EPAs reported in peer reviewed literature, in different clinical professions?
METHOD
METHODS
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, Arksey and O'Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Searching ten electronic databases returned 1622 articles, with 173 articles included. Data extracted included demographics, EPA discipline, titles and further specifications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All articles were published between 2007-2021 across sixteen country contexts. The majority were from North America (n = 162, 73%) describing medical sub-specialty EPAs (n = 126, 94%). There were comparably few EPA frameworks reported in clinical professions other than medicine (n = 11, 6%). Many articles reported only EPA titles without further explanation and limited content validation. The majority did not include information about the EPA design process. Few EPAs and frameworks were reported according to all the recommended EPA attributes. There was unclear distinction between specialty-specific EPAs and those that could be useful across disciplines.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our review highlights the large volume of EPAs reported in post-licensure medicine, including the volume disparity compared to other clinical professions. Basing our enquiry upon existing guidelines for EPA attributes and features, our experience in conducting the review and our primary finding demonstrated heterogeneity of EPA reporting according to these specifications. To promote EPA fidelity, and quality appraisal, and to reduce interpretation subjectivity, we advocate: diligently reporting EPA attributes and features; including reference or citation to EPA design and content validity information; and considering distinguishing EPAs as specialty-specific or transdisciplinary.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A large volume of post-licensure EPAs were identified in medicine relative to other clinical professions. EPA specifications were absent or variously reported in the literature, risking ambiguous interpretation. The authors recommend that future EPAs are reported with reference to established and evolving construct recommendations, which is integral to concept fidelity and translation to practice and education.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37226147
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04364-4
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04364-4
pmc: PMC10207741
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
372Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Acad Med. 2021 Feb 1;96(2):199-204
pubmed: 33060399
Med Teach. 2012;34(8):e573-81
pubmed: 22530719
Acad Med. 2017 Nov;92(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: P):S110-S117
pubmed: 29065031
Med Teach. 2010;32(10):e453-9
pubmed: 20854153
Acad Med. 2017 Feb;92(2):161-166
pubmed: 27782918
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Med J Aust. 2017 Jan 16;206(1):14-16
pubmed: 28076728
Med Educ. 2022 Sep;56(9):881-891
pubmed: 35388517
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Feb;33(2):253-265
pubmed: 34089340
Med Educ. 2019 Mar;53(3):234-249
pubmed: 30609093
Med Teach. 2021 Nov;43(11):1323-1329
pubmed: 34242113
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 May;31(5):518-23
pubmed: 26902239
Med Teach. 2015;37(11):983-1002
pubmed: 26172347
Med Teach. 2023 Jan 28;:1-6
pubmed: 36708704
Med Educ. 2019 Aug;53(8):766-777
pubmed: 30945329
Med Educ. 2005 Dec;39(12):1176-7
pubmed: 16313574
Acad Med. 2007 Jun;82(6):542-7
pubmed: 17525536
Physiotherapy. 2021 Sep;112:64-71
pubmed: 34029780
Med Teach. 2017 Mar;39(3):232-233
pubmed: 27633048
Med Educ. 2021 Sep;55(9):1011-1032
pubmed: 33884655
Acad Pathol. 2021 Feb 17;8:2374289521990823
pubmed: 33644302
Med Educ. 2008 Sep;42(9):852-3
pubmed: 18715479
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1088-94
pubmed: 23807109
Acad Med. 2022 Feb 1;97(2):193-199
pubmed: 34166233
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Oct;25(4):989-1002
pubmed: 31768787
Acad Med. 2021 Aug 1;96(8):1197-1204
pubmed: 33464735
Med Teach. 2021 Oct;43(10):1106-1114
pubmed: 33167763
J Physician Assist Educ. 2017 Mar;28(1):33-40
pubmed: 28166104
Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1981198
pubmed: 34569433
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020 Dec;25(5):1255-1262
pubmed: 31872327
Med Teach. 2023 Apr 7;:1-7
pubmed: 37027517
Phys Ther. 2018 Jan 1;98(1):3-7
pubmed: 29088388
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2022 May;27(2):491-499
pubmed: 35226240