在机构层面实施基于能力的医学教育:跨学科比较项目评估。

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362909
Heather Braund, J Damon Dagnone, Andrew K Hall, Nancy Dalgarno, Laura McEwen, Karen W Schultz, Adam Szulewski
{"title":"在机构层面实施基于能力的医学教育:跨学科比较项目评估。","authors":"Heather Braund, J Damon Dagnone, Andrew K Hall, Nancy Dalgarno, Laura McEwen, Karen W Schultz, Adam Szulewski","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As an early adopter of competency-based medical education (CBME) our postgraduate institution was uniquely positioned to analyze implementation experience data across programs, while keeping institutional factors constant. We described participants' experiences related to CBME implementation across programs derived from early program evaluation efforts within our setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evaluation focused on eight residency programs at a medium-sized academic institution in Canada. Participants (<i>n</i> = 175) included program leaders, faculty, and residents. The study consisted of 3 phases: (1) describing intended implementation; (2) documenting enacted implementation; and (3) comparing intended with enacted implementation to inform adaptations. Each program's findings were summarized in technical reports which were then analyzed thematically. Cross program data were organized by themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six themes were identified. All groups emphasized the need for ongoing refinement of CBME resulting from shared tensions such as increased assessment burden. However, there were some disparate CBME-related experiences between programs such as the experience with entrustable professional activities, the interpretation of retrospective entrustment anchors, and quality of feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We detected several cross-program successes and important challenges related to CBME. Our experience can inform other programs engaging in implementation and evaluation of CBME.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"705-712"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competency based medical education implementation at the institutional level: A cross-discipline comparative program evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Heather Braund, J Damon Dagnone, Andrew K Hall, Nancy Dalgarno, Laura McEwen, Karen W Schultz, Adam Szulewski\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As an early adopter of competency-based medical education (CBME) our postgraduate institution was uniquely positioned to analyze implementation experience data across programs, while keeping institutional factors constant. We described participants' experiences related to CBME implementation across programs derived from early program evaluation efforts within our setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This evaluation focused on eight residency programs at a medium-sized academic institution in Canada. Participants (<i>n</i> = 175) included program leaders, faculty, and residents. The study consisted of 3 phases: (1) describing intended implementation; (2) documenting enacted implementation; and (3) comparing intended with enacted implementation to inform adaptations. Each program's findings were summarized in technical reports which were then analyzed thematically. Cross program data were organized by themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six themes were identified. All groups emphasized the need for ongoing refinement of CBME resulting from shared tensions such as increased assessment burden. However, there were some disparate CBME-related experiences between programs such as the experience with entrustable professional activities, the interpretation of retrospective entrustment anchors, and quality of feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We detected several cross-program successes and important challenges related to CBME. Our experience can inform other programs engaging in implementation and evaluation of CBME.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"705-712\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362909\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2362909","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:作为能力本位医学教育(CBME)的早期采用者,我们的研究生院在分析不同项目的实施经验数据方面具有得天独厚的优势,同时保持机构因素不变。我们描述了参与者在不同项目中实施基于能力的医学教育(CBME)的经验,这些经验来自于我们早期的项目评估工作:本次评估的重点是加拿大一家中等规模学术机构的八个住院医师培训项目。参与者(n = 175)包括项目负责人、教师和住院医师。研究分为三个阶段:(1) 描述预期实施情况;(2) 记录实际实施情况;(3) 比较预期实施情况和实际实施情况,为调整提供信息。每项计划的研究结果都汇总到技术报告中,然后进行专题分析。跨计划数据按主题进行整理:确定了六个主题。所有小组都强调需要不断完善 CBME,这是由于共同的矛盾(如评估负担加重)造成的。然而,不同项目之间也有一些与 CBME 相关的不同经验,如可委托专业活动的经验、对回顾性委托锚的解释以及反馈的质量:我们发现了一些跨项目的成功经验和与 CBME 相关的重要挑战。我们的经验可以为其他参与实施和评估 CBME 的项目提供借鉴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Competency based medical education implementation at the institutional level: A cross-discipline comparative program evaluation.

Introduction: As an early adopter of competency-based medical education (CBME) our postgraduate institution was uniquely positioned to analyze implementation experience data across programs, while keeping institutional factors constant. We described participants' experiences related to CBME implementation across programs derived from early program evaluation efforts within our setting.

Methods: This evaluation focused on eight residency programs at a medium-sized academic institution in Canada. Participants (n = 175) included program leaders, faculty, and residents. The study consisted of 3 phases: (1) describing intended implementation; (2) documenting enacted implementation; and (3) comparing intended with enacted implementation to inform adaptations. Each program's findings were summarized in technical reports which were then analyzed thematically. Cross program data were organized by themes.

Results: Six themes were identified. All groups emphasized the need for ongoing refinement of CBME resulting from shared tensions such as increased assessment burden. However, there were some disparate CBME-related experiences between programs such as the experience with entrustable professional activities, the interpretation of retrospective entrustment anchors, and quality of feedback.

Conclusion: We detected several cross-program successes and important challenges related to CBME. Our experience can inform other programs engaging in implementation and evaluation of CBME.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信