Development and Validation of a Set of Palliative Medicine Entrustable Professional Activities: Findings from a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are routine tasks considered essential to a professional practice. An EPA can serve as a performance-based outcome that a clinical supervisor would progressively entrust a learner to perform. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify, develop, and validate a set of EPAs for the palliative medicine discipline. METHODS: The design was a sequential qualitative and quantitative mixed methods study. A working group was convened to develop a set of EPAs. Focus groups and surveys were used for validation purposes. Palliative medicine educators and content experts from across Canada participated in both the working group as well as the focus groups. Attendees of the 2014 Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) annual conference completed surveys. A questionnaire was used to collect survey participant sociodemographic, clinical, and academic information along with ratings of the importance of the EPAs individually and collectively. Cronbach's alpha examined internal consistency of the set of EPAs. RESULTS: Focus group participants strongly endorsed the 12 EPAs. Virtually all survey participants rated the individual EPAs as being "fairly/very important" (range 94% to 100%). Of the participants, 97% agreed that residents able to perform the set of EPAs would be practicing palliative medicine and 87% indicated strong agreement that this collective set of EPAs captures activities that all palliative medicine physicians must be able to perform. A Cronbach's alpha of 0.841 confirmed good internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Near uniform agreement from a national group of palliative medicine physicians provides strong validation for the set of 12 EPAs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".