Search

Purpose As educators have implemented competency-based medical education (CBME) as a framework for training and assessment, they have made decisions based on available evidence and on the medical education community's assumptions about CBME. This critical narrative review aimed to collect, synthesize, and judge the existing evidence underpinning assumptions the community has made about CBME. Method The authors searched Ovid MEDLINE to identify empirical studies published January 2000 to February 2019 reporting on competence, competency, and CBME. The knowledge synthesis focused on "core" assumptions about CBME, selected via a survey of stakeholders who judged 31 previously identified assumptions. The authors judged, independently and in pairs, whether evidence from included studies supported, did not support, or was mixed related to each of the core assumptions. Assumptions were also analyzed to categorize their shared or contrasting purposes and foci. Results From 8,086 unique articles, the authors reviewed 709 full-text articles and included 189 studies reporting evidence related to 15 core assumptions. Most studies (80%; n = 152) used a quantitative design. Many focused on procedural skills (48%; n = 90) and assessed behavior in clinical settings (37%; n = 69). On aggregate, the studies produced a mixed evidence base, reporting 362 data points related to the core assumptions (169 supportive, 138 not supportive, and 55 mixed). The 31 assumptions were organized into 3 categories: aspirations, conceptualizations, and assessment practices. Conclusions The reviewed evidence base is significant but mixed, with limited diversity in research designs and the types of competencies studied. This review pinpoints tensions to resolve (where evidence is mixed) and research questions to ask (where evidence is absent). The findings will help the community make explicit its assumptions about CBME, consider the value of those assumptions, and generate timely research questions to produce evidence about how and why CBME functions (or not).

Purpose To characterize how residents employ rhetorical appeals (i.e., the strategic use of communication to achieve specifiable goals) when discussing unnecessary diagnostic tests with patients. Method In 2015, senior hematology residents from 10 Canadian universities participating in a national formative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) completed a resource stewardship communication station. In this communication scenario, a standardized patient (SP) portrayed a patient requesting unnecessary thrombophilia testing following early pregnancy loss. The authors performed a thematic analysis of audio transcripts using a qualitative description approach to identify residents' rhetorical appeals to logic (rational appeals), credibility, and emotion. Results For persuasive communication, residents (n = 27) relied primarily on rational appeals that fit into 3 categories (with themes) focused on medical evidence (poor utility, professional guidelines and recommendations), avoidance of harm (insurance implications, unnecessary or potentially harmful interventions, patient anxiety), and reassurance to patient (normalizing, clinical pretest probability, criteria for reconsidering testing). Appeals to credibility and emotion were rarely used. Conclusions In an OSCE setting, residents relied predominantly on rational appeals when engaging SPs in conversations about unnecessary tests. These observations yield insights into how recent emphasis within residency education on appropriate test utilization may manifest when residents put recommendations into practice in conversations with patients. This study's framework of rational appeals may be helpful in designing communication curricula about unnecessary testing. Future studies should explore rhetoric about unnecessary testing in the clinical environment, strategies to teach and coach residents leading these conversations, and patients' preferences and responses to different appeals.

As a field, health professions education (HPE) has begun to answer calls to draw on social sciences and humanities (SS&H) knowledge and approaches for curricular content, design, and pedagogy. Two commonly used SS&H concepts in HPE are critical reflection and critical reflexivity. But these are often conflated, misunderstood, and misapplied. Improved clarity of these concepts may positively affect both the education and practice of health professionals. Thus, the authors seek to clarify the origins of each, identify the similarities and differences between them, and delineate the types of teaching and assessment methods that fit with critical reflection and/or critical reflexivity. Common to both concepts is an ultimate goal of social improvement. Key differences include the material emphasis of critical reflection and the discursive emphasis of critical reflexivity. These similarities and differences result in some different and some similar teaching and assessment approaches, which are highlighted through examples. The authors stress that all scientific and social scientific concepts and methods imported into HPE must be subject to continued scrutiny both from within their originating disciplines and in HPE. This continued questioning is core to the ongoing development of the HPE field and also to health professionals' thinking and practice.

It is widely accepted that quality improvement (QI) education should be experiential. Many training programs believe that making QI learning "hands-on" through project-based learning will translate into successful learning about QI. However, this pervasive and overly simplistic interpretation of experiential QI learning, and the general lack of empirical exploration of the factors that influence experiential learning processes, may limit the overall impact of project-based learning on educational outcomes.In this Perspective, the authors explore the opportunities afforded by a theoretically informed approach, to deepen understanding of the diverse factors that affect experiential QI learning processes in the clinical learning environment. The authors introduce the theoretical underpinnings of experiential learning more generally, and then draw on their experiences and data, obtained in organizing and studying QI education activities, to illuminate how sociocultural theories such as Billett's workplace learning theory, and sociomaterial perspectives such as actor-network theory, can provide valuable lenses for increasing our understanding of the varied individuals, objects, contexts, and their relationships that influence project-based experiential learning. The two theoretically informed approaches that the authors describe are amongst numerous others that can inform a QI education research agenda aimed at optimizing educational processes and outcomes. The authors conclude by highlighting how a theoretically informed QI education research agenda can advance the field of QI education; they then describe strategies for achieving this goal.

To systematically review published quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) curricula for medical students and/or residents to (1) determine educational content and teaching methods, (2) assess learning outcomes achieved, and (3) identify factors promoting or hindering curricular implementation.Data sources included Medline (to January 2009), EMBASE, HealthSTAR, and article bibliographies. Studies selected reported curricula outlining specific educational content and teaching format. For articles with an evaluative component, the authors abstracted methodological features, such as study design. For all articles, they conducted a thematic analysis to identify factors influencing successful implementation of the included curricula.Of 41 curricula that met the authors' criteria, 14 targeted medical students, 24 targeted residents, and 3 targeted both. Common educational content included continuous QI, root cause analysis, and systems thinking. Among 27 reports that included an evaluation, curricula were generally well accepted. Most curricula demonstrated improved knowledge. Thirteen studies (32%) successfully implemented local changes in care delivery, and seven (17%) significantly improved target processes of care. Factors that affected the successful curricular implementation included having sufficient numbers of faculty familiar with QI and PS content, addressing competing educational demands, and ensuring learners' buy-in and enthusiasm. Participants in some curricula also commented on discrepancies between curricular material and local institutional practice or culture.QI and PS curricula that target trainees usually improve learners' knowledge and frequently result in changes in clinical processes. However, successfully implementing such curricula requires attention to a number of learner, faculty, and organizational factors.

This paper answers two related questions: When did the education of doctors become a subject for scientific inquiry? And what were the political and economic contexts, the worldviews, structures and events, that enabled the emergence and development of medical education research at that time and in that manner?A detailed, concurrent, chronological textual analysis, with triangulation between textual form and contents, was conducted between 2006 and 2008. The primary texts were the complete volumes of the Journal of Medical Education (then the only journal in its field) from 1955 through 1959. Texts were analyzed within a theoretical framework grounded in the literature on interdisciplinary fields.In 1955, the academic medical community was just awakening to the possibility of medical education research; by 1959, it was institutionalized. Major factors contributing to its emergence included the increasing importance of scientific research generally, money for medical education research, the explosive growth of scientific knowledge, and growing calls for public accountability of medical education.Many factors led to the emergence of medical education research in the late 1950s within a particular sociohistorical context. The nature of research in this field, which is currently the subject of debate, is also of necessity historically situated and contingent, drawing on its roots in this era. A historical understanding will inform further analysis of the events, structures, and worldviews that underpin the definition(s) of legitimate knowledge production within the field of medical education research.