Context Assessment for and of learning in workplace settings is at the heart of competency‐based medical education. In postgraduate medical education (PGME), entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and entrustment scales are increasingly used to assess competence. However, the educational impacts of these assessment approaches remain unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore trainee perceptions regarding the impacts of EPAs and entrustment scales on feedback and learning processes in the clinical setting. Methods Four focus groups were conducted with postgraduate trainees in anaesthesia, emergency medicine, general internal medicine and nephrology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Data collection and analysis were informed by principles of constructivist grounded theory. Results Entrustable professional activities representing well‐defined tasks are perceived as potentially effective drivers for feedback and learning. Use of EPAs and entrustment scales, however, may augment existing tensions between developmental (for learning) and decision‐making (of learning) assessment functions. Three key dilemmas seem to influence the impact of EPA‐based assessment approaches on residents' learning: (a) standardisation of outcomes versus flexibility in assessment to align with individual learning experiences; (b) assessment tasks focusing on performance standards versus opportunities for learning, and (c) feedback focusing on numeric entrustment scores versus narrative and dialogue. Use of entrustment as an assessment outcome may impact trainees' motivation and feelings of self‐efficacy, further enhancing tensions between learning and performance. Conclusions Entrustable professional activities and entrustment scales may support assessment for learning in PGME. However, their successful implementation requires the careful management of dilemmas that arise in EPA‐based assessment in order to support competence development.
ObjectiveAdvance care planning (ACP) can result in end-of-life care that is more congruent with patients’ values and preferences. There is increasing interest in video decision aids to assist with ACP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of video decision aids on patients’ preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments (primary outcome).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL, between 1980 and February 2014, and correspondence with authors.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials of adult patients that compared a video decision aid to a non-video-based intervention to assist with choices about use of life-sustaining treatments and reported at least one ACP-related outcome.Data extractionReviewers worked independently and in pairs to screen potentially eligible articles, and to extract data regarding risk of bias, population, intervention, comparator and outcomes. Reviewers assessed quality of evidence (confidence in effect estimates) for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Results10 trials enrolling 2220 patients were included. Low-quality evidence suggests that patients who use a video decision aid are less likely to indicate a preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (pooled risk ratio, 0.50 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.95); I2=65%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests that video decision aids result in greater knowledge related to ACP (standardised mean difference, 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.77); I2=0%). No study reported on the congruence of end-of-life treatments with patients’ wishes. No study evaluated the effect of video decision aids when integrated into clinical care.ConclusionsVideo decision aids may improve some ACP-related outcomes. Before recommending their use in clinical practice, more evidence is needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the impact of video decision aids when integrated into patient care.
Background Infection control protocols, including visitor restrictions, implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic threatened the ability to provide compassionate, family-centered care to patients dying in the hospital. In response, clinicians used videoconferencing technology to facilitate conversations between patients and their families. Objectives To understand clinicians’ perspectives on using videoconferencing technology to adapt to pandemic policies when caring for dying patients. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted with 45 clinicians who provided end-of-life care to patients in 3 acute care units at an academically affiliated urban hospital in Canada during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020-July 2020). A 3-step approach to conventional content analysis was used to code interview transcripts and construct overarching themes. Results Clinicians used videoconferencing technology to try to bridge gaps in end-of-life care by facilitating connections with family. Many benefits ensued, but there were also some drawbacks. Despite the opportunity for connection offered by virtual visits, participants noted concerns about equitable access to videoconferencing technology and authenticity of technology-assisted interactions. Participants also offered recommendations for future use of videoconferencing technology both during and beyond the pandemic. Conclusions Clinician experiences can be used to inform policies and practices for using videoconferencing technology to provide high-quality end-of-life care in the future, including during public health crises.
TBL appears feasible in the GME environment, with learner reactions ranging from positive to neutral. Gaps in the literature occur within each of the 4 elements of the suggested framework, including: , faculty preparation time and minimum length of effective TBL sessions;, impact of team heterogeneity and inconsistent attendance; , comparison to other instructional methods and outcomes measuring knowledge retention, knowledge application, and skill development; and, factors that influence the completion of preparatory work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.