Display options
Cite
Liu L, Jiang Z, Qi X, et al. An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: A scoping review. Med Educ Online. 2021;26(1):1981198doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198.
Liu, L., Jiang, Z., Qi, X., Xie, A., Wu, H., Cheng, H., Wang, W., & Li, H. (2021). An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: A scoping review. Medical education online, 26(1), 1981198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198
Liu, Lu, et al. "An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: A scoping review." Medical education online vol. 26,1 (2021): 1981198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198
Liu L, Jiang Z, Qi X, Xie A, Wu H, Cheng H, Wang W, Li H. An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: A scoping review. Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1981198. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198. PMID: 34569433; PMCID: PMC8477952.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1981198. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198.

An update on current EPAs in graduate medical education: A scoping review.

Medical education online

Lu Liu, Zhehan Jiang, Xin Qi, A'Na Xie, Hongbin Wu, Huaqin Cheng, Weimin Wang, Haichao Li

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Medical Education, Peking University, Beijing, China.
  2. National Center for Health Professions Education Development, Peking University, Beijing, China.
  3. Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

PMID: 34569433 PMCID: PMC8477952 DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1981198

Abstract

The purpose of this scoping review is to update the recent progress of EPAs research in GME, focusing on the topical concern of EPAs effectiveness, and to provide a reference for medical researchers in countries/regions interested in introducing EPAs. Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework regarding scoping reviews, the researchers, in January 2021, conducted a search in five databases to ensure the comprehensiveness of the literature. After the predetermined process, 29 articles in total were included in this study. The most common areas for the implementation and evaluation of EPAs were Surgery (n = 7,24.1%), Pediatric (n = 5,17.2%) and Internal medicine (n = 4,13.8%), a result that shows a relatively large change in the research trend of EPAs in the last two years. Prior to 2018, EPAs research focused on internal medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, and primary care. The articles in the category of EPAs implementation and evaluation had four main themes: (1) validation of EPAs (n = 16,55.2%); (2) describing the experience of implementing EPAs (n = 11,37.9%); (3) examining the factors and barriers that influence the implementation and evaluation of EPAs (n = 6,20.6%); and (4) researching the experiences of faculty, interns, and other relevant personnel in using EPAs. Training programs were the most common EPAs implementation setting (n = 26,89.6%); direct observation and evaluation (n = 12,41.4%), and evaluation by scoring reports (n = 5,17.2%) were the two most common means of assessing physicians' EPA levels; 19 papers (65.5%) used faculty evaluation, and nine of these papers also used self-assessment (31.0%); the most frequently used tools in the evaluation of EPAs were mainly researcher-made instruments (n = 37.9%), assessment form (n = 7,24.1%), and mobile application (n = 6,20.7%). Although EPAs occupy an increasingly important place in international medical education, this study concludes that the implementation and diffusion of EPAs on a larger scale is still difficult.

Keywords: Entrustable professional activities; assessment; postgraduate medical education; scoping review

References

  1. Med Educ. 2019 Mar;53(3):234-249 - PubMed
  2. J Cancer Educ. 2020 Feb;35(1):165-177 - PubMed
  3. Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):191-8 - PubMed
  4. Perspect Med Educ. 2020 Aug;9(4):210-219 - PubMed
  5. Med Sci Educ. 2019 Jan 10;29(1):247-253 - PubMed
  6. Med J Aust. 2019 May;210(8):354-359 - PubMed
  7. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jan;35(1):331-335 - PubMed
  8. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1919316 - PubMed
  9. Acad Pediatr. 2019 May - Jun;19(4):410-413 - PubMed
  10. CJEM. 2019 Nov;21(6):803-806 - PubMed
  11. J Surg Educ. 2020 Nov - Dec;77(6):e220-e228 - PubMed
  12. J Surg Educ. 2020 Jul - Aug;77(4):739-748 - PubMed
  13. J Surg Educ. 2019 Sep - Oct;76(5):1174-1186 - PubMed
  14. Indian J Public Health. 2019 Oct-Dec;63(4):277-281 - PubMed
  15. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Oct;71(Suppl 1):671-678 - PubMed
  16. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):983-1002 - PubMed
  17. J Grad Med Educ. 2019 Aug;11(4):430-438 - PubMed
  18. Acad Pediatr. 2021 May-Jun;21(4):735-741 - PubMed
  19. Med Educ. 2005 Dec;39(12):1176-7 - PubMed
  20. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143 - PubMed
  21. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 23;13:48 - PubMed
  22. Transfusion. 2020 May;60(5):912-917 - PubMed
  23. J Grad Med Educ. 2019 Apr;11(2):214-220 - PubMed
  24. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Nov 23;20(1):452 - PubMed
  25. J Cancer Educ. 2020 Oct 27;: - PubMed
  26. Am J Surg. 2020 Jul;220(1):4-7 - PubMed
  27. J Surg Educ. 2020 Nov - Dec;77(6):1562-1567 - PubMed
  28. J Grad Med Educ. 2019 Aug;11(4 Suppl):158-164 - PubMed
  29. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jan;99(1):81-85 - PubMed
  30. Ir J Med Sci. 2020 Nov;189(4):1379-1389 - PubMed
  31. MedEdPORTAL. 2019 Nov 22;15:10854 - PubMed
  32. J Surg Educ. 2020 May - Jun;77(3):520-526 - PubMed
  33. J Dent Educ. 2020 Sep;84(9):955-963 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types