Is the RANZCP CPD programme a competency-based educational programme?

Beer, Wayne de

doi:10.1177/1039856219859279

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria were published between 2010 and 2021, and the majority (15%; n = 6) were published in 2019. The studies represented the following countries: Canada (37%, n = 14) [10,11,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], USA (27.5%, n = 11) [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50], Australia (5%, n = 2) [51,52], China (5%, n = 2) [53,54], Dutch Caribbean islands (2.5%, n = 1) [55], Germany (2.5%, n = 1) [56], Guatemala (2.5%, n = 1) [57], Korea (2.5%, n = 1) [58], the Netherlands (2.5%, n = 1) [59], New Zealand (2.5%, n = 1) [60], The Republic of Haiti (2.5%, n = 1) [61], Turkey (2.5%, n = 1) [62], and the region of West Africa (2.5%, n = 1) [63].…”

Section: Findings Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The approaches or models reported include Pawson's model of realist program evaluation [37], theory-based evaluation approaches [10], Stufflebeam's context, inputs, processes, and products (CIPP) model [62], the concerns-based adoption model, sensemaking and outcome harvesting [33]the CIPP model [48], and quality improvement (QI) for program and process improvement [50]. On the other hand, a wide variety of evaluation tools was reported including observations (3%, n = 1) [28] surveys or questionnaires (58%, n = 22) [10, 28, 29, 31, 34-36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 49-53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 63] interviews (16%, n = 6) [10,28,37,41,47,62], focus groups (13%, n = 5) [35,37,41,50,59], historical document review or analysis (8%, n = 3) [10,29,33], educational activity assessment or analysis of the activity by separate reviewers (5%, n = 2) [55,61], stakeholder discussions or reports about their inputs (5%, n = 2) [43,44], curriculum mapping (3%, n = 1) [32], feedback from external reviews from accrediting bodies (3%, n = 1) [32], the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) (3%, n = 1) [56], and students' or participants' assessments (5%, n = 2) [38,46].…”

Section: Findings Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, 63% (n = 24) of the studies included in this review did not report the evaluation standards applied while assessing the competency-based curricula addressed. Yet, those studies that reported their standards were stated in various ways as follows: some publications referred to the standards of specific specialized associations or societies, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and College of Family Physicians Canada [61], Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists [60], and The American Association of Occupational Health Nurses [45]. Other publications utilized known competency frameworks as their standards, such as CanMED [36,37,59], or the competencies of the American Board of Surgery [43] Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry [31], Royal College of Ophthalmologists [52], The Florida Consortium for Geriatric Medical Education [50], or the Dutch Advisory Board for Postgraduate Curriculum Development for Medical Specialists [59].…”

Section: Findings Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating competency-based medical education: a systematized review of current practices

Alharbi

2024

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Few published articles provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on the topic of evaluating competency-based medical education (CBME) curricula. The purpose of this review is therefore to synthesize the available evidence on the evaluation practices for competency-based curricula employed in schools and programs for undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals. Method This systematized review was conducted following the systematic reviews approach with minor modifications to synthesize the findings of published studies that examined the evaluation of CBME undergraduate and postgraduate programs for health professionals. Results Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported evaluation practices in CBME curricula from various countries and regions worldwide, such as Canada, China, Turkey, and West Africa. 57% of the evaluated programs were at the postgraduate level, and 71% were in the field of medicine. The results revealed variation in reporting evaluation practices, with numerous studies failing to clarify evaluations’ objectives, approaches, tools, and standards as well as how evaluations were reported and communicated. It was noted that questionnaires were the primary tool employed for evaluating programs, often combined with interviews or focus groups. Furthermore, the utilized evaluation standards considered the well-known competencies framework, specialized association guidelines, and accreditation criteria. Conclusion This review calls attention to the importance of ensuring that reports of evaluation experiences include certain essential elements of evaluation to better inform theory and practice.

show abstract