ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2024
Multi-Stakeholder Validation of an Entrustable Professional Activities Framework for Canadian Geriatrics Residency Programs.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have become a cornerstone for an increasing number of competency-based medical education programs. Today, frameworks of EPAs are being used in most, if not all, medical specialties. These frameworks can break a discipline down to its constituting tasks, and structure the training and evaluation of residents. In 2018, The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada created an EPA framework for Geriatric Specialty residency programs nationwide. The present study aims to evaluate this EPA framework through focus groups consisting of several stakeholder groups. Methods: Participants were recruited to be part of one of five focus groups-one for each stakeholder group of interest. The five focus groups consisted of: physician faculty, residents, allied health professionals, administrators/managers, and patients. Each focus group met once virtually over ZOOM Results: Multi-stakeholder consultation yielded feedback on many specific EPAs, suggestions for new EPAs, and additional input which gave rise to four themes: (i) EPA scope, (ii) Operationalization, (iii) Interprofessional Collaboration, and (iv) Patient Advocacy. Lastly, we received their thoughts on how the framework defines Geriatrics relative to the work of Care of the Elderly physicians in Canada. Conclusions: Consulting a variety of stakeholder groups generates a robust and diverse supply of feedback that holistically augments EPA frameworks to be more practical, appropriate, socially accountable and patient-centred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.