ArticleAcademic pathology
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in surgical pathology: implementation experience and longitudinal observations of resident development.
Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Entrustable professional activities in medical education: strategies and results - a systematic review.Medical education online · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) have been implemented in various medical specialties, and the Pathology National EPA Working Group has piloted the implementation of four pathology EPAs. We recently published the development of EPAs within our surgical pathology rotation. Following a six-month pilot, a survey demonstrated that faculty and residents found the forms helpful and easy to use and easy to understand, and EPAs have been fully incorporated into our surgical pathology rotation. Here, we discuss our experience, challenges, and results of resident EPA performance for intraoperative consultations (IOC) and sign-out (SO) after 21 months of implementation. Between June 2022 and March 2024, 24 residents were evaluated by 13 faculty members, resulting in 136 IOC and 298 SO EPA forms. Paper forms were predominantly used, with only five electronic forms submitted. EPA performance scores for SO increased from 2.4 ± 0.8 in Block 1 to 4.6 ± 0.2 in Block 14 (p < 0.0001), whereas performance scores for IOC increased from 2.7 ± 1.0 in Block 1 to 4.8 ± 0.2 in Block 14 (p < 0.0001). The progressive decrease in the standard deviation throughout residency denotes higher competence homogeneity as residency graduation approaches. Overall, our EPA evaluation method showed ease of use, provided valuable tracking tools, and long-term feasibility. EPAs are robust tools for tracking resident progression toward independent practice in surgical pathology, offering valuable insights for program and rotation directors to assess and track individual EPA skills, identify intervention points, and provide an opportunity for immediate, actionable feedback based on current performance.
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.