Advancing and sustaining excellence in EPA-based curricula
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of health professions education is socially determined and closely linked to the quality of health care. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) add strength to and operationalize curricula for competency-based education for health professions by focusing on both the patient and trainee, bringing health professions education together with patient care. This social accountability within an EPA-based curriculum emphasizes measurable enhancements to local health services through EPAs. As such, both external quality assurance (QA) and internal QA are crucial for implementing and improving an EPA-based program. External QA involves guidance from the regulating body regarding training policies, procedures, and practices. Internal QA entails self-auditing, utilizing mechanisms like program evaluation (PE) to monitor, evaluate, and improve the assessment and attainment of EPAs. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) can be used to augment PE by serving as a system for accountability and transparency. This section introduces the concepts of PE and CQI to be used within an EPA-based curriculum, models to support PE and CQI processes, examples of actual cases where PE and CQI were beneficial, and solutions to address challenges specific to EPA-based curricula.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it