Analyzing the Administrative Burden of Competency Based Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Postgraduate residency programs in Canada are transitioning to a competency-based medical education (CBME) system. Within this system, resident performance is documented through frequent assessments that provide continual feedback and guidance for resident progression. An area of concern is the perception by faculty of added administrative burden imposed by the frequent evaluations. This study investigated the time spent in the documentation and submission of required assessment forms through analysis of quantitative data from the Queen's University Diagnostic Radiology program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data regarding time taken to complete Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA) assessments was collected from 24 full-time and part-time radiologists over a period of 18 months. This data was analyzed using SPSS to determine mean time of completion by individuals, departments, and by experience with the assessment process. RESULTS: The average time taken to complete an EPA assessment form was 3 minutes and 6 seconds. Assuming 3 completed EPA assessment forms per week for each resident (n = 12) and equal distribution among all staff, this averaged out to an additional 18 minutes of administrative burden per staff member over a 4 week block. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the perception by faculty of additional administrative burden for assessment in the CBME framework. The data provided quantitative evidence of administrative burden for the documentation and submission of assessments. The data indicated that the added administrative burden may be reasonable given mandate for CBME implementation and the advantages of adoption for postgraduate medical education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".