Holly A. Caretta-Weyer MD, MHPE, Stefanie S. Sebok-Syer PhD, Amanda M. Morris MA, Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd, Abra L. Fant MD, MS, Kevin R. Scott MD, MSEd, Matthew Pirotte MD, Michael A. Gisondi MD, Lalena M. Yarris MD, MCR
{"title":"更好地合作：以多方参与的方式开展急诊医学专业范围内的可委托专业活动","authors":"Holly A. Caretta-Weyer MD, MHPE, Stefanie S. Sebok-Syer PhD, Amanda M. Morris MA, Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd, Abra L. Fant MD, MS, Kevin R. Scott MD, MSEd, Matthew Pirotte MD, Michael A. Gisondi MD, Lalena M. Yarris MD, MCR","doi":"10.1002/aet2.10974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a widely used framework for curriculum and assessment, yet the variability in emergency medicine (EM) training programs mandates the development of EPAs that meet the needs of the specialty as a whole. This requires eliciting and incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (i.e., faculty, residents, and patients) in the development of EPAs. Without a shared understanding of what a resident must be able to do upon graduation, we run the risk of advancing ill-prepared residents that may provide inconsistent care.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In an effort to address these challenges, beginning in February 2020, the authors assembled an advisory board of 25 EM faculty to draft and reach consensus on a final list of EPAs that can be used across all training programs within the specialty of EM. Using modified Delphi methodology, the authors came to consensus on an initial list of 22 EPAs. The authors presented these EPAs to faculty supervisors, residents, and patients for refinement. The authors collated and analyzed feedback from focus groups of residents and patients using thematic analysis. The EPAs were subsequently refined based on this feedback.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Stakeholders in EM residency training endorsed a final revised list of 22 EPAs. Stakeholder focus groups highlighted two main thematic considerations that helped shape the finalized list of EM EPAs: attention to the meaningful nuances of EPA language and contextualizing the EPAs and viewing them developmentally.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>To foreground all key stakeholders within the EPA process for EM, the authors chose within the development process to draft; come to consensus; and refine EPAs for EM in collaboration with relevant faculty, patient, and resident stakeholders. Each stakeholder group contributed meaningfully to the content and intended implementation of the EPAs. This process may serve as a model for others in developing stakeholder-responsive EPAs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better together: A multistakeholder approach to developing specialty-wide entrustable professional activities in emergency medicine\",\"authors\":\"Holly A. Caretta-Weyer MD, MHPE, Stefanie S. Sebok-Syer PhD, Amanda M. Morris MA, Benjamin H. Schnapp MD, MEd, Abra L. Fant MD, MS, Kevin R. Scott MD, MSEd, Matthew Pirotte MD, Michael A. Gisondi MD, Lalena M. Yarris MD, MCR\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/aet2.10974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a widely used framework for curriculum and assessment, yet the variability in emergency medicine (EM) training programs mandates the development of EPAs that meet the needs of the specialty as a whole. This requires eliciting and incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (i.e., faculty, residents, and patients) in the development of EPAs. Without a shared understanding of what a resident must be able to do upon graduation, we run the risk of advancing ill-prepared residents that may provide inconsistent care.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In an effort to address these challenges, beginning in February 2020, the authors assembled an advisory board of 25 EM faculty to draft and reach consensus on a final list of EPAs that can be used across all training programs within the specialty of EM. Using modified Delphi methodology, the authors came to consensus on an initial list of 22 EPAs. The authors presented these EPAs to faculty supervisors, residents, and patients for refinement. The authors collated and analyzed feedback from focus groups of residents and patients using thematic analysis. The EPAs were subsequently refined based on this feedback.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Stakeholders in EM residency training endorsed a final revised list of 22 EPAs. Stakeholder focus groups highlighted two main thematic considerations that helped shape the finalized list of EM EPAs: attention to the meaningful nuances of EPA language and contextualizing the EPAs and viewing them developmentally.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>To foreground all key stakeholders within the EPA process for EM, the authors chose within the development process to draft; come to consensus; and refine EPAs for EM in collaboration with relevant faculty, patient, and resident stakeholders. Each stakeholder group contributed meaningfully to the content and intended implementation of the EPAs. This process may serve as a model for others in developing stakeholder-responsive EPAs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AEM Education and Training\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10974\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Better together: A multistakeholder approach to developing specialty-wide entrustable professional activities in emergency medicine
Purpose
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a widely used framework for curriculum and assessment, yet the variability in emergency medicine (EM) training programs mandates the development of EPAs that meet the needs of the specialty as a whole. This requires eliciting and incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholders (i.e., faculty, residents, and patients) in the development of EPAs. Without a shared understanding of what a resident must be able to do upon graduation, we run the risk of advancing ill-prepared residents that may provide inconsistent care.
Methods
In an effort to address these challenges, beginning in February 2020, the authors assembled an advisory board of 25 EM faculty to draft and reach consensus on a final list of EPAs that can be used across all training programs within the specialty of EM. Using modified Delphi methodology, the authors came to consensus on an initial list of 22 EPAs. The authors presented these EPAs to faculty supervisors, residents, and patients for refinement. The authors collated and analyzed feedback from focus groups of residents and patients using thematic analysis. The EPAs were subsequently refined based on this feedback.
Results
Stakeholders in EM residency training endorsed a final revised list of 22 EPAs. Stakeholder focus groups highlighted two main thematic considerations that helped shape the finalized list of EM EPAs: attention to the meaningful nuances of EPA language and contextualizing the EPAs and viewing them developmentally.
Conclusions
To foreground all key stakeholders within the EPA process for EM, the authors chose within the development process to draft; come to consensus; and refine EPAs for EM in collaboration with relevant faculty, patient, and resident stakeholders. Each stakeholder group contributed meaningfully to the content and intended implementation of the EPAs. This process may serve as a model for others in developing stakeholder-responsive EPAs.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
