TY - JOUR
T1 - Medical students’ perspectives on entrustment decision making in an entrustable professional activity assessment framework
T2 - A secondary data analysis
AU - Caro Monroig, Angeliz M.
AU - Chen, H. Carrie
AU - Carraccio, Carol
AU - Richards, Boyd F.
AU - ten Cate, Olle
AU - Balmer, Dorene F.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Purpose Research on how entrustment decisions are made identifies 5 influential factors (supervisor, trainee, supervisor–trainee relationship, context, task). However, this literature primarily represents the perspective of supervisors in graduate medical education and is conducted outside of an assessment framework where entrustment decisions have consequences for trainees and for patients. To complement the literature, the authors explored how medical students in a pilot program that used an entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment framework perceived factors influencing entrustment decisions. Method The authors conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from program evaluation of a pilot project using an EPA assessment framework to advance students through their curriculum and into residency. Data were derived from 8 focus groups conducted over 4 years (2015–2018) with 27 students who shared their experience of learning and supervision in the project. Sensitized by the entrustment literature, the authors coded and analyzed focus group transcripts according to principles of thematic analysis. Results Components of the trainee and supervisor–trainee relationship factors predominated students’ perceptions of entrustment decisions. Students directed their own learning by asking for feedback, seeking opportunities to engage in learning, sharing limitations of their knowledge with supervisors, and pushing supervisors to recalibrate assessments when appropriate. Students’ agentic actions were facilitated by longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships wherein they felt comfortable asking for help and built confidence in patient care. Students mentioned components of other factors that influenced entrustment decisions (supervisor, clinical task, clinical context), but did so less frequently and from a nonagentic vantage point. Conclusions Students’ perspectives on entrustment decisions can be derived from their views on learning and supervision in an EPA assessment framework. Their perspectives complement the literature by highlighting students’ agentic actions to influence entrustment decisions and promotion of agentic action through practices incorporating longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships.
AB - Purpose Research on how entrustment decisions are made identifies 5 influential factors (supervisor, trainee, supervisor–trainee relationship, context, task). However, this literature primarily represents the perspective of supervisors in graduate medical education and is conducted outside of an assessment framework where entrustment decisions have consequences for trainees and for patients. To complement the literature, the authors explored how medical students in a pilot program that used an entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment framework perceived factors influencing entrustment decisions. Method The authors conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from program evaluation of a pilot project using an EPA assessment framework to advance students through their curriculum and into residency. Data were derived from 8 focus groups conducted over 4 years (2015–2018) with 27 students who shared their experience of learning and supervision in the project. Sensitized by the entrustment literature, the authors coded and analyzed focus group transcripts according to principles of thematic analysis. Results Components of the trainee and supervisor–trainee relationship factors predominated students’ perceptions of entrustment decisions. Students directed their own learning by asking for feedback, seeking opportunities to engage in learning, sharing limitations of their knowledge with supervisors, and pushing supervisors to recalibrate assessments when appropriate. Students’ agentic actions were facilitated by longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships wherein they felt comfortable asking for help and built confidence in patient care. Students mentioned components of other factors that influenced entrustment decisions (supervisor, clinical task, clinical context), but did so less frequently and from a nonagentic vantage point. Conclusions Students’ perspectives on entrustment decisions can be derived from their views on learning and supervision in an EPA assessment framework. Their perspectives complement the literature by highlighting students’ agentic actions to influence entrustment decisions and promotion of agentic action through practices incorporating longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109188572&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003858
DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003858
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85109188572
SN - 1040-2446
VL - 96
SP - 1175
EP - 1181
JO - Academic Medicine
JF - Academic Medicine
IS - 8
ER -