How can Entrustable Professional Activities serve the quality of health care provision through licensing and certification?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper about Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) was solicited to support the discussion about the future of licensing within the Medical Council of Canada. EPAs, units of professional practice to be entrusted to learners or professionals once they have shown to possess sufficient competence, were proposed in 2005 to operationalize competency-based postgraduate medical education and have become widely popular for various health professions education programs in many countries.EPAs break the breadth of competence for license down to units of practice that can be overseen,assessed, monitored, documented, and entrusted. EPAs together may constitute an individual's portfolio of qualifications, and define a scope of practice. A medical license and a specialty certification can then be defined as the required combination of EPAs for which one is qualified at any specific moment in time. That 'snapshot' could change over time and reflect the professional development of the individual, both in their competence and in their privileges to practice. Micro-credentialing and digital badges might become an adequate option to show-case one's scope of practice at any time and operationalize the idea of a dynamic portfolio of EPAs.
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 | 0.034 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".