Multi-Stakeholder Validation of an Entrustable Professional Activities Framework for Canadian Geriatrics Residency Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have become a cornerstone for an increasing number of competency-based medical education programs. Today, frameworks of EPAs are being used in most, if not all, medical specialties. These frameworks can break a discipline down to its constituting tasks, and structure the training and evaluation of residents. In 2018, The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada created an EPA framework for Geriatric Specialty residency programs nationwide. The present study aims to evaluate this EPA framework through focus groups consisting of several stakeholder groups. Methods: for no longer than 90 minutes. Meeting transcripts were iteratively coded based on emerging themes, and were compared for similarities and gaps between stakeholder perspectives. Results: Multi-stakeholder consultation yielded feedback on many specific EPAs, suggestions for new EPAs, and additional input which gave rise to four themes: (i) EPA scope, (ii) Operationalization, (iii) Interprofessional Collaboration, and (iv) Patient Advocacy. Lastly, we received their thoughts on how the framework defines Geriatrics relative to the work of Care of the Elderly physicians in Canada. Conclusions: Consulting a variety of stakeholder groups generates a robust and diverse supply of feedback that holistically augments EPA frameworks to be more practical, appropriate, socially accountable and patient-centred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".