Workplace-Based Assessment in Orthopaedic Training: A Commentary on Evolution and Growing Pains.

Bryan Ashman, Jason R Frank, Maura Kempin, Ian Incoll, Markku Nousiainen, Linda Snell, James Tomlinson, Ann Van Heest

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Bryan AshmanDepartment of Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3506-3576

Jason R FrankCentre for Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-0146

Maura KempinAustralian Orthopaedic Association, Sydney, Australia.

Ian IncollDepartment of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Markku NousiainenDeaprtment of Orthoapedic Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-7768

Linda SnellInstitute for Health Sciences Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1686-5207

James TomlinsonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals & Sheffield University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0990-0254

Ann Van HeestDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While competency-based programmatic assessment systems have become widespread worldwide, there are few comparisons of competence assessment in orthopaedic surgery between countries. In this paper, we provide a narrative overview of current systems in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, and Australia. We explore what types of workplace-based assessments are used, how many data points are gathered to inform entrustment and progression decisions and whether there is validity evidence using a modified Kane framework. Significant concordance and some variation were found between the programs, and the issues identified are discussed along with the challenges and potential solutions for enhancing competence assessment.

Identifiers

PMID41947923

DOI10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00294

PMCPMC13052928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.