Entrustable professional activities in entry‐level health professional education: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a recent enhancement to competency-based health professional education that describe the observable work done by a competent health professional. Through defining education outcomes in a work-based context, EPAs offer potential to identify skill gaps in individual or student cohorts and focus improvements. Entrustable professional activities have been pioneered and gained rapid acceptance in postgraduate medical education; however, less is known about their application and use in undergraduate or entry-level health professional education. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was used to explore how and in what context EPAs are being used in entry-level health professional education. Databases searched include CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and PsycINFO. A total of 748 abstracts were returned after duplicates removed, and 127 full-text articles were screened with 30 included for data extraction. Publications in this area have recently accelerated with disciplines of professions of medicine, pharmacy, dietetics and physician assistants reporting on EPA development, implementation and evaluation. EPA use has been reported in the United States, Canada, Europe Australia and Central America. Major motivation reported for EPA use is to improve patient safety by aligning performance and expectations and to improve student assessment. Several studies report on the use of EPAs to evaluate different curriculum models or identify curriculum gaps representing potential application in education research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".