Does direct observation happen early in a new competency‐based residency program?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A key component of competency-based medical education is workplace-based assessment, which includes observation (direct or indirect) of residents. Direct observation has been emphasized as an ideal form of assessment yet challenges have been identified that may limit its adoption. At present, it remains unclear how often direct and indirect observation are being used within the clinical setting. The objective of this study was to describe patterns of observation in an emergency medicine competency-based program 2 years postimplementation. METHODS: = 19) recorded the type of observation they received (direct or indirect) following workplace-based entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments from December 15, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Assessment forms were reviewed and analyzed to describe patters of observation. RESULTS: Assessments were collected on all 19 eligible residents (100% participation). A total of 1,070 EPA assessments were completed during the study period, of which 798 (74.6%) had the type of observation recorded. Of these recorded observations, 546 (68.4%) were directly observed and 252 (31.6%) were indirectly observed. The length of written comments contained within assessments following direct and indirect observation did not differ significantly. There was no significant association between resident gender and observation type or resident stage of training and observation type. Certain EPA assessments showed a clear preference toward either direct or indirect observation. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to report patterns of observation in a competency-based residency program. The results suggest that direct observation can be quickly adopted as the primary means of workplace-based assessment. Indirect observation comprised a sizeable minority of observations and may be an underrecognized contributor to workplace-based assessment. The preference toward either direct or indirect observation for certain EPA assessments suggests that the entrustable professional activity itself may influence the type of observation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".