3.8 Article

Developing an Entrustment Process: Insights from the AAMC CoreEPA Pilot

Journal

MEDICAL SCIENCE EDUCATOR
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 395-401

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s40670-020-00918-z

Keywords

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs); Assessment; Entrustment; Undergraduate medical education

Funding

  1. Association of American Medical Colleges

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the main goals of the CoreEPA pilot has been to determine the feasibility of developing a process to make summative entrustment decisions regarding entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Five years into the pilot, we report results of a research study we conducted to explore approaches to the entrustment process undertaken by our ten participating schools. We sought to identify the choices that participating schools made regarding the entrustment process and why these decisions were made. We are sharing these results, highlighting ongoing challenges that were identified with the intent of helping other medical schools that are moving toward EPA-based assessment. We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of all 10 medical schools in the CoreEPA pilot to understand their choices in designing the entrustment process. Additional information was obtained through follow-up communication to ensure completeness and accuracy of the findings. Several common themes are described. Our results indicate that, while approaches to the entrustment process vary considerably, all schools demonstrated consistent adherence to the guiding principles of the pilot. Several common barriers to the entrustment process emerged, and there was a consensus that more experience is needed with the process before consequential entrustment decisions can be made. The CoreEPA pilot schools continue to address challenges identified in implementing entrustment processes and making entrustment decisions for our students graduating in the Class of 2020.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available