RESUMEN
PURPOSE: There is a widely recognized need to improve teacher professional development as well as recognition of teaching expertise in health professions education (HPE). This study aimed to develop Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for university teachers in HPE as foundations for systems of training, certification, and career opportunities. METHOD: A local expert consultation using a two-round Delphi study at a Dutch academic medical center (round 1: n = 23; round 2: n = 13) was conducted to reach a consensus on an initial set of EPAs developed by the researchers. Subsequently, an international expert consultation was conducted using a survey (n = 21) and a focus group discussion (n = 7) to explore their international value. RESULTS: Local consensus for all nine EPAs was reached in the second round of the Delphi study. The international survey showed a consensus for relevance and usefulness of all but one EPA but not for clarity and comprehensiveness of the EPAs. The international expert consultation revealed a need to tailor the EPA specifications to local contexts. CONCLUSION: We found international consensus for the relevance and usefulness of EPAs for university teachers in HPE but local tailoring for each EPA is needed to acknowledge contextual differences.
Asunto(s)
Educación Basada en Competencias , Internado y Residencia , Competencia Clínica , Técnica Delphi , Empleos en Salud , Humanos , UniversidadesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinician-Scientists are considered to be important for continuous improvement of patient care, because they are ideally positioned to bridge the gap between scientific research and clinical care. However, limited empirical evidence is available about how they connect these two realms. So far research has mainly focused on their direct role in bridging the gap. This study investigates an additional mechanism; that is whether clinician-scientists also connect science and care indirectly through disseminated learning. During this type of learning, clinical colleagues learn by working with clinician-scientists. METHODS: Disseminated learning was studied in five physiotherapeutic care settings in the Netherlands with clinician-scientists (N = 5) and their clinical colleagues (N = 14). Semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and May of 2016. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians and clinician-scientists in all settings reported clinicians learning informally. They learned by being informed about (evidence for) new tests and treatments, through increased understanding of the research process and research results, and through awareness of an academic reflective approach to care. Learning took place primarily through knowledge sharing, and to a lesser extent through role modeling or joint implementation. Interpersonal and organizational conditions, such as overlapping clinical expertise and organizational policy and culture, seemed to facilitate or hinder learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights disseminated learning as a mechanism of how clinician-scientists may connect science and care. Furthermore, it provides insight into how disseminated learning may take place and the conditions that may facilitate or restrict learning.