Evaluation of a reflection-based program for health professional continuing competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Health professional regulators have a mandate to ensure ongoing competence of their regulated members (registrants). Programs for monitoring and assessing continuing competence are one means of assuring the public of the quality of professional services. More regulators are adopting programs for continuing competence that require registrants to demonstrate reflective practice and practice improvement. More research on the effectiveness of reflection-based programs for continuing competence is needed. This study describes the evaluation of a reflection-based continuing competence program used by a regulator in Alberta, Canada. Methods Submission of a Continuing Competence Learning Plan (CCLP) is a requirement for practice permit renewal each year. CCLP submissions were randomly selected over a two-year period and rated according to a rubric. CCLP submission ratings and quality and quantity of content were compared. CCLP submission ratings were also compared to demographic and practice profile variables to identify significant relationships that could be used for risk-based selection of CCLP submissions in the future. Results Most registrants selected for review completed acceptable CCLP submissions that included reflective content. There was a relationship between CCLP submission rating and the gender identity of participants. There was no relationship between CCLP submission rating and participants' age, years since graduation, practice area, role or setting, client age range, or geographic location of primary employer. Conclusions The absence of statistically significant relationships between demographic and practice profile variables, other than gender identity, suggests that the other factors identified in the literature as risks to competence and professional conduct, are not necessarily risk factors for how registrants complete their CCLP submissions. Further comparison of CCLP submission ratings to other workplace and personal factors is required to identify those that may be useful for risk-based selection for CCLP submission review.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".