M.S. Ryan is professor and vice chair of education, Department of Pediatrics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, and a PhD student, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3266-9289 .
A.D. Blood is director of curricular resources, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2275-923X .
Acad Med. 2022 Nov 1;97(11S):S63-S70. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004912. Epub 2022 Aug 9.
Educational program objectives (EPOs) provide the foundation for a medical school's curriculum. In recent years, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) endorsed an outcomes-based approach to objectives, to embrace the movement toward competency-based medical education (CBME). The purpose of this study was to explore the CBME frameworks used by medical schools in formulating their EPOs. A secondary aim was to determine factors related to the selection of specific frameworks.
The authors performed a quantitative content analysis of entries to the 2020 Academic Medicine Snapshot. Publicly available data gathered included demographic features of each program (e.g., year founded, accreditation status, affiliation, etc.), participation in national medical education consortia, and presence of specific CBME frameworks identified in EPOs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine trends in frameworks used by medical schools. Bivariate comparisons between factors and frameworks were conducted using chi-square tests. Logistic regression was used to examine factors predicting use of more recently developed CBME frameworks.
A total of 135 institutions submitted Snapshots (RR = 88%). All institutions endorsed 1 or more CBME frameworks, with 37% endorsing 2 and 20% endorsing 3 or more. The most common was the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies (63%). In addition to published frameworks, 36% of institutions developed their own competencies. Schools with pending LCME visits were 2.61 times more likely to use a more recently developed curricular framework, P = .022.
Medical schools in the United States have embraced the CBME movement through incorporation of competency-based frameworks in their EPOs. While it is encouraging that CBME frameworks have been integrated in medical school EPOs, the variability and use of multiple frameworks identifies the pressing need for a unified CBME framework in undergraduate medical education.
教育项目目标 (EPO) 为医学院的课程提供基础。近年来,医学教育联络委员会 (LCME) 认可了基于成果的目标方法,以支持以能力为基础的医学教育 (CBME)。本研究旨在探讨医学院制定 EPO 时使用的 CBME 框架。次要目的是确定与特定框架选择相关的因素。
作者对 2020 年《学术医学快照》的条目进行了定量内容分析。收集的公开数据包括每个项目的人口统计学特征(例如,成立年份、认证状态、附属关系等)、参与国家医学教育联盟以及在 EPO 中确定的特定 CBME 框架的存在。使用描述性统计数据检查医学院使用的框架趋势。使用卡方检验对因素和框架之间的关系进行了二元比较。使用逻辑回归检验了预测使用最新开发的 CBME 框架的因素。
共有 135 个机构提交了快照(RR = 88%)。所有机构都认可了 1 个或多个 CBME 框架,其中 37%认可了 2 个,20%认可了 3 个或更多。最常见的是研究生医学教育认证委员会核心能力(63%)。除了已发布的框架外,36%的机构还制定了自己的能力。正在等待 LCME 访问的学校使用最近开发的课程框架的可能性是使用其他框架的 2.61 倍,P =.022。
美国的医学院通过在 EPO 中纳入基于能力的框架,已经接受了 CBME 运动。虽然将 CBME 框架整合到医学院 EPO 中令人鼓舞,但 CBME 框架的多样性和使用多个框架表明,在本科医学教育中迫切需要一个统一的 CBME 框架。