Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 407–416 | Cite as

A Systems-Based Approach to Curriculum Development and Assessment of Core Entrustable Professional Activities in Undergraduate Medical Education

  • Vivian T. Obeso
  • Carrie A. Phillipi
  • Christine A. Degnon
  • Teresa J. Carter
  • On behalf of the AAMC Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency Pilot
Monograph

Abstract

Background

In 2014, the AAMC launched a pilot project with 10 institutions to test the feasibility of implementing 13 Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency.

Methods

The Curriculum and Assessment (C-A) group of the pilot has proposed using a systems-based approach (SBA) as a framework for the development and implementation of EPAs in undergraduate medical education (UME). Based on the seminal concepts of systems thinking, five process-oriented steps define the system, describe a pathway to goal accomplishment, develop connections among people responsible for implementation, prepare for work activities, and plan for continuous quality improvement.

Results

The systems-based approach proved to be very well-suited to the specific challenges of implementing EPAs within an existing curriculum. Our results with EPA 11 provided an early indicator of a successful longitudinal and fully integrated approach to educating and assessing students in obtaining informed consent.

Conclusions

Pilot project institutions are endorsing the SBA to develop and implement EPAs in UME to encourage scalability, replication, or adaptation, as needed locally and across institutional sites. While the work of the Core EPA pilot project is ongoing, we introduce the SBA to foster early adoption by institutions interested in incorporating EPAs into their current undergraduate medical education programs.

Keywords

Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency (EPAs) Systems-based approach to assessment (SBA) Undergraduate medical education (UME) Informed consent EPA 11 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Meenakshy Aiyer, MD, Beth Baron, MD, Colleen Gillespie, PhD, Michael L. Schwartz, PhD, Eduard E. Vasilevskis, MD, MPH, Mark Hormann, MD, Matthew Emery, MD, of the Curriculum and Assessment Group and our colleagues from the ten member institutions of the AAMC Core EPA Pilot Project; faculty at the Harvard Macy Institute course, A Systems Approach to Assessment in Health Professions Education; and those who have lent inspiration and support to us through their work with the AAMC at various times during this project: Robert Englander, MD, Carol Aschenbrener, MD, Maryellen Gusic, MD, and Janet Bull, MA.

AAMC Core EPAs for Entering Residency Pilot Project Curriculum and Assessment Group Members:

Meenakshy Aiyer, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria

Beth Baron, MD, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons

Teresa J. Carter, MA, EdD, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine

Matthew Emery, MD, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine

Colleen Gillespie, PhD, New York University School of Medicine

Mark Hormann, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

Vivian Obeso, MD, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine

Carrie Phillipi, MD, PhD, Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine

Michael L. Schwartz, PhD, Yale School of Medicine

Edward Vasilevskis, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

Funding/Support

Sponsorship and support of the work of the Core EPA Pilot Project come from the Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC, and the ten member institutions of the pilot project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

None.

Disclaimer

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall K, Schneider B, Abercrombie S, Gravel J, Hoekzema G, Kozakowski S, et al. Hitting the ground running: medical student preparedness for residency training. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(4):375.  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Core entrustable professional activities for entering residency: Curriculum developers’ guide. AAMC, Washington, DC. 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spear S, Bowen HK. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harv Bus Rev. 1999;77(5):96–106.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armstrong EG, Mackey M, Spear SJ. Medical education as a process management problem. Acad Med. 2004;79(8):721–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200408000-00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowe, CM, Armstrong E. Assessments for systems learning: a holistic assessment framework to support decision making across the medical education continuum. Acad Med. 2016. [published online].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aylward M, Nixon J, Gladding S. An entrustable professional activity (EPA) for handoffs as a model for EPA assessment development. Acad Med. 2014;89(10):1335–40.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Englander R, Carraccio C. From theory to practice: making entrustable professional activities come to life in the context of milestones. Acad Med. 2014;89(10):1321–3.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Valerdi R, Rouse W. When systems thinking is not a natural act. In: Rassa RC, Clark J,Beaulieu A, Lyons B. IEEE International Systems Conference Proceedings; 2010 San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams RG, Dunnington GL, Mellinger JD, Klamen DL. Placing constraints on the use of the ACGME milestones: a commentary on the limitations of global performance ratings. Acad Med. 2015;90(4):404–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach. 2012;34(3):205–14. [8]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33:478–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harden RM. Learning outcomes as a tool to assess progression. Med Teach. 2007;29(7):678–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701729955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colbert C, Dannefer E, French J. Clinical competency committees and assessment: changing the conversation in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(2):162–5.  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00448.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. The new era on informed consent: getting to a reasonable patient standard through shared decision making. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2063–4.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grady C. Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. New Engl J Med. 2016;372(9):855–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson BM, Sparks RA, Seavey J, Wallace MD, Irvan J, Raines AR, et al. Informed consent training improves surgery resident performance in simulated encounters with standardized patients. Am J Surg. 2015;210(3):578–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.12.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vossoughi SR, Macauley R, Sazama K, Fung MK. Attitudes, practices, and training on informed consent for transfusions and procedures. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;144(2):315–21.  https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPP85EXSGZORYZ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nickels AS, Tilburt JC, Ross LF. Pediatric resident preparedness and educational experiences with informed consent. Acad Pediatr. 2016;16(3):298–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2015.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Durning SJ, Lubarsky S, Torre D, Dory V, Holmboe E. Considering “nonlinearity” across the continuum in medical education assessment: supporting theory, practice, and future research directions. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2015;35(3):232–43.  https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR, for the Internnational CBME Collaborators. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676–82.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills competence performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9):S63–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holmboe ES, Batalden P. Achieving the desired transformation: thoughts on next steps for outcomes-based medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(9):1215–23.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen HC, van den Broek W, ten Cate O. The case for use of entrustable professional activities in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(4):431–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deming WE. The new economics for industry, government, education. 2nd ed. Boston: MIT Press; 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian T. Obeso
    • 1
  • Carrie A. Phillipi
    • 2
  • Christine A. Degnon
    • 3
  • Teresa J. Carter
    • 4
    • 5
  • On behalf of the AAMC Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency Pilot
  1. 1.Curriculum and Medical EducationFlorida International University Herbert Wertheim College of MedicineMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  3. 3.University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Family Medicine Residency ProgramBrownsvilleUSA
  4. 4.Professional Instruction and Faculty Development, Office of Faculty AffairsVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA
  5. 5.Teaching and LearningVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations