A qualitative study of Canadian resident experiences with Competency-Based Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Competency-based medical education (CBME) is an outcomes-based curricular paradigm focused on ensuring that graduates are competent to meet the needs of patients. Although resident engagement is key to CBME's success, few studies have explored how trainees have experienced CBME implementation. We explored the experiences of residents in Canadian training programs that had implemented CBME. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 residents in seven Canadian postgraduate training programs, exploring their experiences with CBME. Participants were equally divided between family medicine and specialty programs. Themes were identified using principles of constructivist grounded theory. Results: Residents were receptive to the goals of CBME, but in practice, described several drawbacks primarily related to assessment and feedback. For many residents, the significant administrative burden and focus on assessment led to performance anxiety. At times, residents felt that assessments lacked meaning as supervisors focused on "checking-boxes" or provided overly broad, non-specific comments. Furthermore, they commonly expressed frustration with the perceived subjectivity and inconsistency of judgments on assessments, especially if assessments were used to delay progression to greater independence, contributing to attempts to "game the system." Faculty engagement and support improved resident experiences with CBME. Conclusion: Although residents value the potential for CBME to improve the quality of education, assessment and feedback, the current operationalization of CBME may not be consistently achieving these objectives. The authors suggest several initiatives to improve how residents experience assessment and feedback processes in CBME.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 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".