Search

The article discusses the importance of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in health profession education, specifically in the context of workplace-based assessment (WBA) in postgraduate medical education (PGME). The authors highlight the need to address systemic racism and power dynamics, which are often overlooked in current reforms. They suggest that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) may offer a promising approach to reducing bias in WBA, but deliberate and conscious efforts are necessary to ensure fair and comprehensive assessments. The article emphasizes the importance of critical and intersectional approaches to advancing equity in health profession education. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs), discrete profession‐specific tasks requiring integration of multiple competencies, are increasingly used to help define and inform curricula of specialty training programmes. Although guidelines exist to help guide the developmental process, deciding what logic to use to draft a preliminary EPA framework poses a crucial but often difficult first step. The logic of an EPA framework can be defined as the perspective used by its developers to break down the practice of a profession into units of professional work. This study aimed to map dominant logics and their rationales across postgraduate medical education and fellowship programmes. Methods: A scoping review using systematic searches within five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science) was performed. Dominant logics of included papers were identified using inductive coding and iterative analysis. Results: In total, 42 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 22; 52%), Canada (n = 6; 14%) and the Netherlands (n = 4; 10%). Across the reported range of specialties, family medicine (n = 4; 10%), internal medicine (n = 4; 10%), paediatrics (n = 3; 7%) and psychiatry (n = 3; 7%) were the most common. Three dominant logics could be identified, namely, 'service provision', 'procedures' and/or 'disease or patient categories'. The majority of papers (n = 37; 88%) used two or more logics when developing EPA frameworks (median = 3, range = 1–4). Disease or patient groups and service provision were the most common logics used (39% and 37%, respectively). Conclusions: Most programmes used a combination of logics when trying to capture the essential tasks of a profession in EPAs. For each of the three dominant logics, the authors arrived at a definition and identified benefits, limitations and examples. These findings may potentially inform best practice guidelines for EPA development. This study mapped the 3 dominant logics used in development of EPA‐frameworks. For each, a definition is provided with examples, benefits and limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]