We need to talk: clinical competency committees in the key of c(onversation)

Competence committees: The steep climb from concept to implementation

INTRODUCTION

Competence committees (CCs) are groups of educators tasked with reviewing resident progress throughout their training, making decisions regarding the achievement of Entrustable Professional Activities and recommendations regarding promotion and remediation. CCs have been mandated as part of competency-based medical education programmes worldwide; however, there has yet to be a thorough examination of the implementation challenges they face and how this impacts their functioning and decision-making processes. This study examined CC implementation at a Canadian institution, documenting the shared and unique challenges that CCs faced and overcame over a 3-year period.

METHODS

This study consisted of three phases, which were conceptually and analytically linked using Moran-Ellis and colleagues' notion of 'following a thread.' Phase 1 examined the early perceptions and experiences of 30 key informants using a survey and semi-structured interviews. Phase 2 provided insight into CCs' operations through a survey sent to 35 CC chairs 1-year post-implementation. Phase 3 invited 20 CC members to participate in semi-structured interviews to follow up on initial themes 2 years post-implementation. Detailed observation notes from 16 CC meetings across nine disciplines were used to corroborate the findings from each phase.

RESULTS

Response rates in each phase were 83% (n = 25), 43% (n = 15) and 60% (n = 12), respectively. Despite the high degree of support for CCs among faculty and resident members, several ongoing challenges were highlighted: adapting to programme size, optimising membership, engaging residents, maintaining capacity among members, sharing and aggregating data and developing a clear mandate.

DISCUSSION

Findings of this study reinforce the importance of resident engagement and information sharing between disciplines. Challenges faced by CCs are discussed in relation to the existing literature to inform a better understanding of group decision-making processes in medical education. Future research could compare implementation practices across sites and explore which adaptations lead to better or worse decision-making outcomes.

Trust in Group Decisions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Trust is a critical component of competency committees given their high-stakes decisions. Research from outside of medicine on group trust has not focused on trust in group decisions, and "group trust" has not been clearly defined. The purpose was twofold: to examine the definition of trust in the context of group decisions and to explore what factors may influence trust from the perspective of those who rely on competency committees through a proposed group trust model.

METHODS

The authors conducted a literature search of four online databases, seeking articles published on trust in group settings. Reviewers extracted, coded, and analyzed key data including definitions of trust and factors pertaining to group trust.

RESULTS

The authors selected 42 articles for full text review. Although reviewers found multiple general definitions of trust, they were unable to find a clear definition of group trust and propose the following: a group-directed willingness to accept vulnerability to actions of the members based on the expectation that members will perform a particular action important to the group, encompassing social exchange, collective perceptions, and interpersonal trust. Additionally, the authors propose a model encompassing individual level factors (trustor and trustee), interpersonal interactions, group level factors (structure and processes), and environmental factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher degrees of trust at the individual and group levels have been associated with attitudinal and performance outcomes, such as quality of group decisions. Developing a deeper understanding of trust in competency committees may help these committees implement more effective and meaningful processes to make collective decisions.

The Clinical Competency Committee in Adult Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology-Perspectives From Program Directors Around the United States

The clinical competency committee offers a fellowship program a structured approach to assess the clinical performance of each trainee in a comprehensive fashion This special article examines the structure and function of this important committee in detail. Furthermore, the strategies for the optimal functioning of this committee are also discussed as a way to enhance the overall quality of the fellowship program.

Getting with the times: a narrative review of the literature on group decision making in virtual environments and implications for promotions committees

INTRODUCTION

Concerns around the time and administrative burden of trainee promotion processes have been reported, making virtual meetings an attractive option for promotions committees in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine. However, whether such meetings can uphold the integrity of decision-making processes has yet to be explored. This narrative review aimed to summarize the literature on decision making in virtual teams, discuss ways to improve the effectiveness of virtual teams, and explore their implications for practice.

METHODS

In August 2017, the Web of Science platform was searched with the terms 'decision making' AND 'virtual teams' for articles published within the last 20 years. The search yielded 336 articles, which was narrowed down to a final set of 188 articles. A subset of these, subjectively deemed to be of high-quality and relevant to the work of promotions committees, was included in this review.

RESULTS

Virtual team functioning was explored with respect to team composition and development, idea generation and selection, group memory, and communication. While virtual teams were found to potentially offer a number of key benefits over face-to-face meetings including convenience and scheduling flexibility, inclusion of members at remote sites, and enhanced idea generation and external storage, these benefits must be carefully weighed against potential challenges involving planning and coordination, integration of perspectives, and relational conflict among members, all of which can potentially reduce decision-making quality.

DISCUSSION

Avenues to address these issues and maximize the outcomes of virtual promotions meetings are offered in light of the evidence.