ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Developing a Framework of Entrustable Professional Activities for Residency Training in Hematology.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs), essential for competent and safe clinical practice, serve as milestones to assess trainees' readiness for independent patient care. This study aimed to develop a context-specific EPA framework for hematology residency training in China. Methods: We employed a modified Delphi method involving 35 experts from 8 academic hospitals to establish China's inaugural hematology-specific EPA framework. The development process comprised three key components: (1) a systematic literature review integrating international EPA models with China's the Standardized Training System for Residents (STSR) requirements; (2) structural validation through the EQual rubric (cut-off: 4.07); and (3) a two-round Delphi consultations evaluating importance, observability, evaluability, repeatability, feasibility and entrustment-supervision levels. Expert engagement metrics and inter-rater agreement evaluated consensus quality. Results: The preliminary 14-item framework was ultimately refined to 12 EPAs following the exclusion of "Public Health Emergency Response" (EPA 14; mean score=3.23) and "Imparting Bad News" (EPA 13; 57.1% experts advocated removing). Key revisions involved expanding the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) competency domain to include donor selection (EPA 7) and the provisional addition then subsequent removal of "Cellular Immunotherapy Complications Management" due to insufficient standardization of assessment criteria. The final EPAs achieved unanimous EQual compliance (≥4.07) and strong Delphi consensus (Kendall's W: Round 1 = 0.271, Round 2 = 0.529, p<0.001). Clinical entrustment-supervision levels were systematically stratified by training phase and expected competency at graduation. Conclusion: This study has established China's first hematology-specific EPA framework by addressing gaps in global EPA models through integration of integrating local clinical demands (high patient volume, resource constraints) and multidisciplinary coordination. The framework provides a validated tool for competency-based assessment, with future steps focusing on digital implementation and nationwide validation.
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.