Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34266851›Full record

SynthesisBMJ health & care informatics2021

Development of a core competency framework for clinical informatics.

Alan Davies, Julia Mueller, Alan Hassey, Georgina Moulton

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ health & care informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Alan DaviesSchool of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Cheshire, UK alan.davies@ucl.ac.uk.
Julia MuellerUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alan HasseyThe Faculty of Clinical Informatics (FCI), London, UK.
Georgina MoultonSchool of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, Cheshire, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUntil this point there was no national core competency framework for clinical informatics in the UK. We report on the final two iterations of work carried out in the formation of a national core competency framework. This follows an initial systematic literature review of existing skills and competencies and a job listing analysis.MethodsAn iterative approach was applied to framework development. Using a mixed-methods design we carried out semi-structured interviews with participants involved in informatics (n=15). The framework was updated based on the interview findings and was subsequently distributed as part of a bespoke online digital survey for wider participation (n=87). The final version of the framework is based on the findings of the survey.

resultsOver 102 people reviewed the framework as part of the interview or survey process. This led to a final core competency framework containing 6 primary domains with 36 subdomains containing 111 individual competencies.

conclusionsAn iterative mixed-methods approach for competency development involving the target community was appropriate for development of the competency framework. There is some contention around the depth of technical competencies required. Care is also needed to avoid professional burnout, as clinicians and healthcare practitioners already have clinical competencies to maintain. Therefore, how the framework is applied in practice and how practitioners meet the competencies requires careful consideration.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceMedical InformaticsDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleBMJ health informaticsmedical informatics

Identifiers

PMID34266851
PMCPMC8286765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.