Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34001581›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021

Perceptions of the impact of annual review of competence progression (ARCP): a mixed methods case study.

Sam Roberts, Barbara MacPherson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sam RobertsAiredale NHS Foundation Trust, Steeton, UK and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK samuel.roberts@anhst.nhs.uk.
Barbara MacPhersonUniversity of Leeds School of Medicine, Leeds, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The annual review of competence progression (ARCP) is a high-stakes assessment which all UK postgraduate trainees undertake to ensure competence progression. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of the ARCP as an assessment have reported deficiencies in both validity and reliability, however, there has been little focus on the educational impact of the ARCP.We conducted a mixed methods case study involving questionnaire, interviews and a focus group examining the impact of the ARCP on a respiratory higher specialist training programme. Participants included both trainers and trainees.Perceptions of impact were mixed. The ARCP was reported to promote broad curriculum coverage, enable educational planning, provide educational governance and facilitate relationships with supervisors. However, participants reported that activities promoted by the ARCP may detract from learning and that issues of reliability and validity undermined the process. In some cases, this was reported to lead to disillusionment and stress for trainees. Concerns were raised that the process promoted a reductionist approach to education.This research has resulted in several changes to local training, however, it has potential implications for the ARCP as a wider process. Trainers should be cognisant of the shortcomings of assessments and their impact on trainees, training and the future of the profession.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateClinical CompetenceHumansPerceptionReproducibility of ResultsARCPassessmentpostgraduate education

Identifiers

PMID34001581
PMCPMC8140710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.