Search

Context Assessment for and of learning in workplace settings is at the heart of competency-based medical education. In postgraduate medical education (PGME), entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and entrustment scales are increasingly used to assess competence. However, the educational impacts of these assessment approaches remain unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore trainee perceptions regarding the impacts of EPAs and entrustment scales on feedback and learning processes in the clinical setting. Methods Four focus groups were conducted with postgraduate trainees in anaesthesia, emergency medicine, general internal medicine and nephrology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Data collection and analysis were informed by principles of constructivist grounded theory. Results Entrustable professional activities representing well-defined tasks are perceived as potentially effective drivers for feedback and learning. Use of EPAs and entrustment scales, however, may augment existing tensions between developmental (for learning) and decision-making (of learning) assessment functions. Three key dilemmas seem to influence the impact of EPA-based assessment approaches on residents' learning: (a) standardisation of outcomes versus flexibility in assessment to align with individual learning experiences; (b) assessment tasks focusing on performance standards versus opportunities for learning, and (c) feedback focusing on numeric entrustment scores versus narrative and dialogue. Use of entrustment as an assessment outcome may impact trainees' motivation and feelings of self-efficacy, further enhancing tensions between learning and performance. Conclusions Entrustable professional activities and entrustment scales may support assessment for learning in PGME. However, their successful implementation requires the careful management of dilemmas that arise in EPA-based assessment in order to support competence development.

Background: Choosing Wisely Canada is a campaign that fosters conversations between physicians and patients about high-value health care. However, little is known about physicians’ readiness to have these conversations. Our objective was to determine how ready practising internists were to embrace and openly address high-value care during conversations with patients or their families. Methods: Practising internists in hospitals affiliated with McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, were invited to complete an electronic survey with 3 clinical scenarios: each had 3 low-value interventions that had been requested by the patient or family member. For each request, participants chose 1 of 3 statements reflecting how they would respond: a low-value statement agreeing to provide the intervention, an implicit high-value statement declining to provide the intervention without mentioning value or an explicit high-value statement declining to provide the intervention with mention of value. Results: Forty-four of 62 eligible physicians (71.0% response rate) participated in the survey. High-value statements were selected in 91% of cases. The implicit high-value statement was chosen more often than the explicit high-value statement (65.7% v. 25.5% of all responses, respectively; χ2 range 4.46–56.23, p < 0.05). Interpretation: Physicians favoured high-value care but frequently chose not to explicitly address value in their statements. Physicians seemed ready to embrace high-value health care practice, although they were not ready to openly discuss it with patients and their families.

Objective Advance care planning (ACP) can result in end-of-life care that is more congruent with patients’ values and preferences. There is increasing interest in video decision aids to assist with ACP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of video decision aids on patients’ preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments (primary outcome). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL, between 1980 and February 2014, and correspondence with authors. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of adult patients that compared a video decision aid to a non-video-based intervention to assist with choices about use of life-sustaining treatments and reported at least one ACP-related outcome. Data extraction Reviewers worked independently and in pairs to screen potentially eligible articles, and to extract data regarding risk of bias, population, intervention, comparator and outcomes. Reviewers assessed quality of evidence (confidence in effect estimates) for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results 10 trials enrolling 2220 patients were included. Low-quality evidence suggests that patients who use a video decision aid are less likely to indicate a preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (pooled risk ratio, 0.50 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.95); I 2 =65%). Moderate-quality evidence suggests that video decision aids result in greater knowledge related to ACP (standardised mean difference, 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.77); I 2 =0%). No study reported on the congruence of end-of-life treatments with patients’ wishes. No study evaluated the effect of video decision aids when integrated into clinical care. Conclusions Video decision aids may improve some ACP-related outcomes. Before recommending their use in clinical practice, more evidence is needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the impact of video decision aids when integrated into patient care.