MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263030180 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001066

Implementing Competency-Based Medical Education in a Postgraduate Family Medicine Residency Training Program: A Stepwise Approach, Facilitating Factors, and Processes or Steps That Would Have Been Helpful

2015· article· en· W2263030180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Schultz, Jane Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Medical educationCurriculumIdentification (biology)Residency trainingGraduate medical educationProfessional developmentMedicinePsychologyAccreditationContinuing educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: In 2009-2010, the postgraduate residency training program at the Department of Family Medicine, Queen's University, wrestled with the practicalities of competency-based medical education (CBME) implementation when its accrediting body, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, introduced the competency-based Triple C curriculum. APPROACH: The authors used a stepwise approach to implement CMBE; the steps were to (1) identify objectives, (2) identify competencies, (3) map objectives and competencies to learning experiences and assessment processes, (4) plan learning experiences, (5) develop an assessment system, (6) collect and interpret data, (7) adjust individual residents' training programs, and (8) distribute decisions to stakeholders. The authors also note overarching processes, costs, and facil itating factors and processes or steps that would have been helpful for CBME implementation. OUTCOMES: Early outcomes are encouraging. Residents are being directly observed more often with increased documented feedback about performance based on explicit competency standards (24,000 data points for 150 residents from 2013 to 2015). These multiple observations are being collated in a way that is allowing the identification of patterns of performance, red flags, and competency development trajectory. Outliers are being identified earlier, resulting in earlier individualized modification of their residency training program. NEXT STEPS: The authors will continue to provide and refine faculty development, are developing an entrustable professional activity field note app for handheld devices, and are undertaking research to explore what facilitates learners' competency development, what increases assessors' confidence in making competence decisions, and whether residents are better trained as a result of CBME implementation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207