"Dismantling Fixed Time, Variable Outcome Education: Abandoning 'Ready or Not, Here they Come' is Overdue"

Competency-based and less time-bound: a new approach to the macro-structure of a medical school curriculum

Shifting to a competency-based (CBME) and not time-bound curricular structure is challenging in the undergraduate medical education (UME) setting for a number of reasons. There are few examples of broad scale CBME-driven interventions that make the UME program less time-bound. However, given the range of student ability and varying speed of acquisition of competencies, this is an area in need of focus. This paper describes a model that uses the macro structure of a UME program to make UME curricula less time-bound, and driven more by student competency acquisition and individual student goals. The 3 + 1 curricular model was derived from the mission of the school, and includes a 3-year core curriculum that all students complete and an individualized phase. Students have an 18 month individualized educational program that meets their developmental needs and their educational and professional goals. This is achieved through a highly structured advising system, including the creation of an Individualized Learning Plan, driven by specific goals and targeted Entrustable Professional Activities (EPA). Students who struggle in achieving core competencies can use individualized time to support competency development and EPA acquisition. For students who have mastered core competencies, options include obtaining a masters degree, clinical immersion, research, and community-based experiences. Students can also graduate after the 3-year core curriculum, and enter residency one year early. Structural approaches such as this may contribute to the norming of the developmental nature of medical education, and can advance culture and systems that support CBME implementation at the UME level.

The Next Era of Assessment: Building a Trustworthy Assessment System

Assessment in medical education has evolved through a sequence of eras each centering on distinct views and values. These eras include measurement (e.g., knowledge exams, objective structured clinical examinations), then judgments (e.g., workplace-based assessments, entrustable professional activities), and most recently systems or programmatic assessment, where over time multiple types and sources of data are collected and combined by competency committees to ensure individual learners are ready to progress to the next stage in their training. Significantly less attention has been paid to the social context of assessment, which has led to an overall erosion of trust in assessment by a variety of stakeholders including learners and frontline assessors. To meaningfully move forward, the authors assert that the reestablishment of trust should be foundational to the next era of assessment. In our actions and interventions, it is imperative that medical education leaders address and build trust in assessment at a systems level. To that end, the authors first review tenets on the social contextualization of assessment and its linkage to trust and discuss consequences should the current state of low trust continue. The authors then posit that trusting and trustworthy relationships can exist at individual as well as organizational and systems levels. Finally, the authors propose a framework to build trust at multiple levels in a future assessment system; one that invites and supports professional and human growth and has the potential to position assessment as a fundamental component of renegotiating the social contract between medical education and the health of the public.

Would I Trust or Will I Trust? The Gap between Entrustment Determinations and Entrustment Decisions for Trainees in Pharmacy and Other Health Professions

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) and entrustment decision making are rapidly becoming mainstream in competency-based education in the health professions. EPAs are the units of professional practice to entrust graduates with once they have developed the required competencies. They were conceived to enable a gradual increase in professional autonomy during training, by allowing trainees to practice activities in which they have demonstrated they have mastered well, with decreasing supervision. However, practicing health care unsupervised generally requires licensure. The question for pharmacy education, as well as for undergraduate medical education, is can students be given any autonomy in practice, even when they have fully mastered an EPA yet remain unlicensed? While entrustment decisions for licensed practitioners have autonomy consequences, some educators in undergraduate programs speak of 'entrustment determinations', to avoid decisions about students that affect patient care, in other words saying, we would trust you, rather than we will trust you. However, graduating learners without the experience of responsibility and reasonable autonomy creates a gap with full practice responsibilities, which may jeopardize patient safety after training. What can programs do to retain the power of using EPAs while at the same time guarding patient safety?