Parker T A, Guiton G, Jones M D
Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
J Perinatol. 2017 Dec;37(12):1335-1340. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.144. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
To assess candidate neonatology EPAs taken from separate but overlapping sets from two organizations.
Using a Delphi process, we asked that neonatology fellowship directors (1) assess importance and scope of 19 candidate EPAs, and (2) propose additional EPAs if necessary. In round 2, we sought clarification of first round responses and evaluated proposed additional EPAs.
Twenty program directors participated. In round 1, all EPAs were scored as important, but four were overly broad. In round 2, respondents rejected proposed subdivisions of one overly broad EPA, retaining it as originally proposed. Specification of entrustment criteria improved the scope of the three other broad EPAs. However, after specification, they were re-rated as insufficiently important and therefore rejected. Neither newly proposed EPA from round 1 was rated as sufficiently important.
The Delphi process yielded 13 EPAs with which to assess capability to practice clinical neonatology.
评估从两个组织中分别选取但有重叠部分的新生儿科专业能力评估（EPA）候选项目。
通过德尔菲法，我们要求新生儿科专科培训主任（1）评估19个候选EPA的重要性和范围，（2）必要时提出额外的EPA。在第二轮中，我们寻求对第一轮回复的澄清，并评估提议的额外EPA。
20位项目主任参与。在第一轮中，所有EPA均被评为重要，但有4个过于宽泛。在第二轮中，受访者拒绝了对一个过于宽泛的EPA提议的细分，保留其最初提议的内容。委托标准的明确改善了其他三个宽泛EPA的范围。然而，明确后，它们被重新评为重要性不足，因此被拒绝。第一轮新提议的EPA均未被评为足够重要。
德尔菲法产生了13个用于评估临床新生儿科实践能力的EPA。
