Exploring Competency-Based Medical Education Through the Lens of the UME–GME Transition: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Competency-based medical education (CBME) represents a shift to a paradigm with shared definitions, explicit outcomes, and assessments of competence. The groundwork has been laid to ensure all learners achieve the desired outcomes along the medical education continuum using the principles of CBME. However, this continuum spans the major transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education (GME) that is also evolving. This study explores the experiences of medical educators working to use CBME assessments in the context of the UME-GME transition and their perspectives on the existing challenges. METHOD: This study used a constructivist-oriented qualitative methodology. In-depth, semistructured interviews of UME and GME leaders in CBME were performed between February 2019 and January 2020 via Zoom. When possible, each interviewee was interviewed by 2 team members, one with UME and one with GME experience, which allowed follow-up questions to be pursued that reflected the perspectives of both UME and GME educators more fully. A multistep iterative process of thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts and identify patterns across interviews. RESULTS: The 9 interviewees represented a broad swath of UME and GME leadership positions, though most had an internal medicine training background. Analysis identified 4 overarching themes: mistrust (a trust chasm exists between UME and GME); misaligned goals (the residency selection process is antithetical to CBME); inadequate communication (communication regarding competence is infrequent, often unidirectional, and lacks a shared language); and inflexible timeframes (current training timeframes do not account for individual learners' competency trajectories). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the mutual desire and commitment to move to CBME across the continuum, mistrust, misaligned goals, inadequate communication, and inflexible timeframes confound such efforts of individual schools and programs. If current efforts to improve the UME-GME transition address the themes identified, educators may be more successful implementing CBME along the continuum.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".