A whole other competence story: exploring faculty perspectives on the process of workplace-based assessment of entrustable professional activities

The centrality of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in competency-based medical education (CBME) is predicated on the assumption that low-stakes, high-frequency workplace-based assessments used in a programmatic approach will result in accurate and defensible judgments of competence. While there have been conversations in the literature regarding the potential of this approach, only recently has the conversation begun to explore the actual experiences of clinical faculty in this process. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the process of EPA assessment for faculty in everyday practice. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with Anesthesia faculty at a Canadian academic center. Participants were asked to describe how they engage in EPA assessment in daily practice and the factors they considered. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Participants in this study perceived two sources of tension in the EPA assessment process that influenced their scoring on official forms: the potential constraints of the assessment forms and the potential consequences of their assessment outcome. This was particularly salient in circumstances of uncertainty regarding the learner's level of competence. Ultimately, EPA assessment in CBME may be experienced as higher-stakes by faculty than officially recognized due to these tensions, suggesting a layer of discomfort and burden in the process that may potentially interfere with the goal of assessment for learning. Acknowledging and understanding the nature of this burden and identifying strategies to mitigate it are critical to achieving the assessment goals of CBME.

Automated summary

This study explores the process of EPA assessment for clinical faculty in everyday practice, and finds that there are potential constraints and consequences in the assessment process that may lead to higher stress levels for faculty, particularly in cases of uncertainty regarding learner competence.