Ekpenyong Andem, Holmboe Eric S, Govaerts Marjan, Heeneman Sylvia
is an Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
at the time of writing was Chief, Research, Milestones Development and Evaluation, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and is now Chief Executive Officer, Intealth, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
J Grad Med Educ. 2024 Dec;16(6):662-683. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-24-00017.1. Epub 2024 Dec 13.
Although Clinical Competency Committees (CCCs) were implemented to facilitate the goals of competency-based medical education, implementation has been variable, and we do not know if and how these committees affected programs and assessment in graduate medical education (GME). To explore the roles CCCs fulfill in GME and their effect on trainees, faculty, and programs. We conducted a narrative review of CCC primary research with the following inclusion criteria: all articles must be research in nature, focused on GME and specifically studying CCCs, and published in English language journals from January 2013 to November 2022. The main results are as follows: (1) The primary role of the CCC (decision-making on trainee progress) is mostly described in "snapshots" (ie, focusing on a single aspect of this role at a single point in time); (2) CCCs are taking on secondary roles, some of which were anticipated (eg, remediation, feedback) whereas others were "unanticipated" (eg, use of CCC data to validate trainee self-assessment, predict trainee performance in other settings such as certifying examinations, investigate gender bias in assessment); and (3) Articles briefly mentioned short-term outcomes of CCCs at the level of the trainees, faculty, and programs. However, most studies described interventions to aid CCC work and did not specifically aim at investigating short-term (eg, curriculum changes) or long-term outcomes (eg, improved patient outcomes). CCCs fulfill a range of roles in assessment beyond their intended purpose. A more systematic approach is needed to investigate the outcomes of CCC implementation on GME.
尽管设立临床能力委员会(CCC)是为了推动基于能力的医学教育目标的实现,但其实施情况参差不齐,而且我们并不清楚这些委员会是否以及如何影响毕业后医学教育(GME)项目和评估。为了探究CCC在GME中所发挥的作用及其对学员、教员和项目的影响,我们对CCC的主要研究进行了叙述性综述,纳入标准如下:所有文章必须具有研究性质,聚焦于GME且专门研究CCC,并发表于2013年1月至2022年11月期间的英文期刊。主要结果如下:(1)CCC的主要作用(对学员进展进行决策)大多在“快照”中有所描述(即,在某一时刻聚焦于该作用的一个方面);(2)CCC正在承担次要作用,其中一些是预期中的(如补习、反馈),而其他则是“意外的”(如利用CCC数据验证学员自我评估、预测学员在其他场景中的表现,如资格考试、调查评估中的性别偏见);(3)文章简要提及了CCC在学员、教员和项目层面的短期结果。然而,大多数研究描述的是有助于CCC工作的干预措施,并非专门旨在调查短期(如课程改革)或长期结果(如改善患者结局)。CCC在评估中发挥了一系列超出其预期目的的作用。需要一种更系统的方法来调查CCC实施对GME的结果。