Purpose This review aimed to synthesise some of the extant work on the use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for postgraduate physicians, to assess the quality of the work and provide direction for future research and practice. Method Systematic searches were conducted within five electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and CINAHL) in September 2018. Reference lists, Google Scholar and Google were also searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results In total, 49 studies were included, classified as Development of EPAs (n = 37; 76% of total included), Implementation and/or assessment of EPAs (n = 10; 20%), or both (n = 2; 4%). EPAs were described for numerous specialties, including internal medicine (n = 14; 36%), paediatrics (n = 8; 21%) and psychiatry (n = 4; 10%). Of the development studies, 92% utilised more than one method to generate EPAs. The two most commonly used methods were developing initial EPAs in a working group, (n = 27; 69%) and revising through deliberation (n = 21; 54%). Development papers were of variable quality (mean QATSDD score = 20, range 6–41). Implementation and assessment studies utilised methods that included observing trainee performance (n = 6; 50%) and enrolling trainees in competency‐based curricula, which included EPAs (n = 4; 33%). The methodological quality of these implementation studies varied (mean QATSDD score = 19.5, range = 6–32). Conclusions This review highlighted a need for: (i) consideration of best practice guidelines for EPA development; (ii) focus on the methodological quality of research on EPA development and of EPAs, and (iii) further work investigating the implementation of EPAs in the curriculum.

No abstract

BackgroundRecent research has demonstrated that burnout is widespread among physicians, and impacts their wellbeing, and that of patients. Such data have prompted efforts to teach resilience among physicians, but efforts are hampered by a lack of understanding of how physicians experience resilience and stress. This study aimed to contribute to knowledge regarding how physicians define resilience, the challenges posed by workplace stressors, and strategies which enable physicians to cope with these stressors.MethodsA qualitative approach was adopted, with 68 semi-structured interviews conducted with Irish physicians. Data were analysed using deductive content-analysis.ResultsFive themes emerged from the interviews. The first theme, ‘The Nature of Resilience’ captured participants’ understanding of resilience. Many of the participants considered resilience to be “coping”, rather than “thriving” in instances of adversity. The second theme was ‘Challenges of the Profession’, as participants described workplace stressors which threatened their wellbeing, including long shifts, lack of resources, and heavy workloads. The third theme, ‘Job-related Gratification’, captured aspects of the workplace that support resilience, such as gratification from medical efficacy. ‘Resilience Strategies (Protective Practices)’ summarised coping behaviours that participants considered to be beneficial to their wellbeing, including spending time with family and friends, and the final theme, ‘Resilience Strategies (Attitudes)’, captured attitudes which protected against stress and burnout.ConclusionsThis study emphasised the need for further research the mechanisms of physician coping in the workplace and how we can capitalise on insights into physicians’ experiences of coping with system-level stressors to develop interventions to improve resilience.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3541-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Context Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer‐reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender‐based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. Methods A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time‐points across a 49‐year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi‐square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. Results A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. Conclusions Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.

Background: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are units of professional practice that capture essential competencies in which trainees must become proficient before undertaking them independently. EPAs provide supervisors with a solid justification for delegating an activity to trainees. This study aimed to develop and ensure face validity of a set of EPAs for junior doctors in the first year of clinical practice in the Republic of Ireland. Methods: An iterative eight stage consensus building process was used to develop the set of EPAs. This process was based on international best practice recommendations for EPA development. A series of surveys and workshops with stakeholders was used to develop a framework of EPAs and associated competencies. An external stakeholder consultation survey was then conducted by the Irish Medical Council. The framework of EPAs was then benchmarked against the 13 core EPAs developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Results: A framework of seven EPAs, and associated competencies resulted from this study. These EPAs address all core activities that junior doctors should be readily entrusted with at the end of the intern year, which is the first year of clinical practice in the Republic of Ireland. Each EPA contains a series of defined competencies. The final EPAs were found to be comparable to the AAMC core EPAs for entering residency. Conclusions: A framework of EPAs for interns in Ireland that are appropriate for the intern year has been developed by key stakeholders. The implementation of the EPAs in practice is the next step, and is likely to result in an improved intern training process and increased patient safety.