Separate Estates: A Case Study Analysis of Competency Assessment Processes among Clinicians in a Canadian Academic Hospital
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study examined competence and competency assessment of regulated health professionals (RHPs) through a case study approach that utilized the Boyatzis model of effective performance. In order to explore how competency assessment was enacted and understood, and how RHPs perceived and experienced competency assessment in a large Canadian academic hospital, the study used three sources of data: key informant interviews (n=19), focus group interviews (n=32), and a review of organizational documents. Participants included RHPs, managers, directors, executives, and other non-health participants, such as human resources professionals. Data were analyzed inductively using Braun and Clark’s (2006) theoretical thematic analysis, and deductively using Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) directed content analysis, all in NVivo Version 11 for Windows. Data revealed the absence of common language for competence across the hospital’s RHP participants. Participants referred to regulatory concepts and competency frameworks when asked to define and describe competence or competency assessment in the hospital setting. At the same time, a strong organizational rhetoric around excellence was evident, as was frequent commentary on incompetence. There was little discussion on RHPs who fell between excellence and incompetence. When describing organizational competency assessment processes, participants were equivocal about what was assessed and whether this assessment focused on organizational values or practice competencies. Fundamental differences in competency assessment processes exist for unionized RHP employees, non-unionized RHP employees and appointed physicians who were not employees, creating a situation of “separate estates”. These estates made interprofessional collaboration difficult by reinforcing uniprofessional perspectives, preventing organizational level discussions of competence and limiting the organization’s ability to harmonize processes across RHPs. Competence did not feature as a prominent concern for most participants who expressed the view that as long as the individual remained in good standing with their regulatory body, competency was not a matter of organizational concern. Recommendations call for healthcare organizations to implement best practice approaches to competency assessment across all RHPs; to establish congruence between organizational and regulatory assessments of competence; and to align assessment language between healthcare workplaces and regulatory bodies in order to facilitate meaningful discussions concerning competence in the practice setting and address the issue of “separate estates”.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,026 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».