How evidence from observing attending physicians links to a competency‐based framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Competency-based medical education frameworks are often founded on a combination of existing research, educational principles and expert consensus. Our objective was to examine how components of the attending physician role, as determined by observing preceptors during their real-world work, link to the CanMEDS Physician Competency Framework. METHODS: This is a sub-study of a broader study exploring the role of the attending physician by observing these doctors during their working day. The parent study revealed three overarching elements of the role that emerged from 14 themes and 123 sub-themes: (i) Competence, defined as the execution of traditional physician competencies; (ii) Context, defined as the environment in which the role is carried out, and (iii) Conduct, defined as the manner of acting, or behaviours and attitudes in the role that helped to negotiate the complex environment. In this sub-study, each sub-theme, or 'role-related component', was mapped to the competencies described in the CanMEDS 2005 and 2015 frameworks. RESULTS: Many role-related components from the Competence element were represented in the 2015 CanMEDS framework. No role-related components from the Context element were represented. Some role-related components from the Conduct element were represented. These Conduct role-related components were better represented in the 2015 CanMEDS framework than in the 2005 framework. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows how the real-world work of attending physicians links to the CanMEDS framework and provides empirical data identifying disconnects between espoused and observed behaviours. There is a conceptual gap where the contextual influences of physicians' work and the competencies required to adjust to these influences are missing from the framework. These concepts should be incorporated into learning both broadly, such as through an emphasis on context within curriculum development for the workplace (e.g. entrustable professional activities), and explicitly, through the introduction of novel competencies (e.g. the Conduct role-related components described in this study).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.332 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".