ArticlePloS one2025
Misbehavior or misalignment? Examining the drift towards bureaucratic box-ticking in Competency-Based Medical Education.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers 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
- Assessment in competency-based medical education for anesthesiology: validity evidence, equity, and faculty readiness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Coordinating the Medical Division of Labour: The Travails of Electronic Patient Records in the United Kingdom and United States.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within competency-based medical education (CBME) residency programs, Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) assessments endeavor to both bolster learning and inform promotion decisions. Recent implementation studies describe successes but also adverse effects, including residents and preceptors drifting towards bureaucratic / purely administrative behaviors and attitudes, although the drivers behind this tendency are not adequately understood. This study sought to examine resident and faculty experiences with implemented EPA processes to elucidate what leads them toward a 'tick-box' approach that has been described in the literature. The internal medicine residency program at the University of Alberta implemented a CBME pilot in 2016. From March to June 2018, a research assistant interviewed 16 residents and 27 preceptors shortly after they completed an EPA assessment. They described their goals, judgements, and actions during a recent EPA observation. Three researchers analyzed the data to identify themes following qualitative description methodology. The requirement to accrue EPA assessments turned them into currency exchanged by preceptors and residents to acknowledge clinical work. Predicaments arose when the prescriptive EPA process felt misaligned with the assessment context. The selected encounter sometimes suited formative but not summative purposes. Preceptors variably prioritized the dual formative and summative purposes and framed the message for either the resident's or the program's benefit. The drift toward bureaucracy in workplace-based assessments is becoming a predictable implementation pattern. Instead of solely attributing this pattern to residents and preceptors misusing the assessment process, viewing their actions as workarounds suggests that users make rational choices to overcome obstacles in the assessment system. Obstacles identified by workarounds could be targeted by design modifications.
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.