Entrustable Professional Activities in Orthopaedics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An entrustable professional activity (EPA) is defined as a core task of a specialty that is entrusted to a trainee once sufficient competence has been reached. A group of EPAs reflects the activities that clinicians commonly do on a day-to-day basis. Lists of EPAs have been created for most medical subspecialties, but not orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study was to create a peer-reviewed list of essential EPAs that a resident must perform independently before completing orthopaedic residency training. METHODS: A focus group of 7 orthopaedic surgeons from the University of Toronto developed a comprehensive list of 285 EPAs. For each subspecialty group, the opinions of at least 15 academic and nonacademic surgeons, as well as subspecialty-trained and non-subspecialty-trained surgeons, were used. The modified Delphi method was used to rank EPAs on a five-point scale from not important to mandatory for a resident to competent before exiting training. Two Delphi rounds were used, using a threshold of >50% of surgeons considering the EPA as mandatory before being considered for the next round. A final list of EPAs was ratified using the focus group of academic surgeons involved in the study. RESULTS: Seventy-five (75) of 107 (70%) surgeons invited responded to the survey. Nearly half (129) of the 285 EPAs were discarded after the first round of Delphi. A further 118 EPAs were discarded after the second Delphi round, leaving 49 final EPAs, across 9 subspecialties in orthopaedic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus was used to create a list of EPAs considered mandatory for completion of resident training in orthopaedics in our province. The final 49 peer-reviewed EPAs will be a valuable benchmark in curriculum design and assessment in orthopaedic surgery in the competency-based era for other programs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".