Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35445932›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2022

Reimagining the Clinical Competency Committee to Enhance Education and Prepare for Competency-Based Time-Variable Advancement.

Mary Ellen J Goldhamer, Maria Martinez-Lage, W Stephen Black-Schaffer, Jennifer T Huang, John Patrick T Co, Debra F Weinstein, Martin V Pusic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cost and Challenges of Clinical Competency Committees and Milestones Assessment.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    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

7 authors.

Mary Ellen J GoldhamerMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. mgoldhamer@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2648-8791
Maria Martinez-LageMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
W Stephen Black-SchafferMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Jennifer T HuangHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John Patrick T CoMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Debra F WeinsteinUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Martin V PusicHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing residents and clinical fellows is a high-stakes activity. Effective assessment is important throughout training so that identified areas of strength and weakness can guide educational planning to optimize outcomes. Assessment has historically been underemphasized although medical education oversight organizations have strengthened requirements in recent years. Growing acceptance of competency-based medical education and its logical extension to competency-based time-variable (CB-TV) graduate medical education (GME) further highlights the importance of implementing effective evidence-based approaches to assessment. The Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) has emerged as a key programmatic structure in graduate medical education. In the context of launching a multi-specialty pilot of CB-TV GME in our health system, we have examined several program's CCC processes and reviewed the relevant literature to propose enhancements to CCCs. We recommend that all CCCs fulfill three core goals, regularly applied to every GME trainee: (1) discern and describe the resident's developmental status to individualize education, (2) determine readiness for unsupervised practice, and (3) foster self-assessment ability. We integrate the literature and observations from GME program CCCs in our institutions to evaluate how current CCC processes support or undermine these goals. Obstacles and key enablers are identified. Finally, we recommend ways to achieve the stated goals, including the following: (1) assess and promote the development of competency in all trainees, not just outliers, through a shared model of assessment and competency-based advancement; (2) strengthen CCC assessment processes to determine trainee readiness for independent practice; and (3) promote trainee reflection and informed self-assessment. The importance of coaching for competency, robust workplace-based assessments, feedback, and co-production of individualized learning plans are emphasized. Individual programs and their CCCs must strengthen assessment tools and frameworks to realize the potential of competency-oriented education.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceInternship and ResidencyCompetency-Based EducationEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansSelf-Assessmentclinical competency committeecompetency-based advancementcompetency-based medical educationCOVID-19individualized learning planMilestonestime-variable graduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID35445932
PMCPMC9021365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.