Research on the development of entrustable professional activity indicators for residents in China: a systematic review
10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20241211-02056
- VernacularTitle:我国住院医师置信职业行为指标构建研究的系统评价
- Author:
Jingyu ZHONG
1
;
Yue XING
;
Liangjing LÜ
;
Qinghua MIN
;
Zhengguang XIAO
;
Caisong ZHU
;
Dandan SHI
;
Xiaoyu FAN
;
Jingshen CHU
;
Huan ZHANG
;
Yi JIANG
;
Weiwu YAO
Author Information
1. 上海交通大学医学院附属同仁医院影像科，上海 200336
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Entrustable professional activities;
Competency-based medical education;
Resident;
Systematic review
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research
2025;24(6):728-735
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To systematically evaluate the current status of research on the development of indicators for entrustable professional activities (EPAs) of residents in China.Methods:We searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Airiti Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for literature on the development of EPA indicators for residents in China published between January 1, 2005 and February 28, 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, followed by descriptive analysis. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for expert opinion. Quantitative data were presented as medians (ranges) and qualitative data were presented as frequencies (percentages).Results:A total of eight articles were included, in which two general EPA indicator systems and six specialty-specific EPA indicator systems were developed for residents. The overall quality of the research was high, with the main shortcomings related to the methods used in the process of constructing the consensus indicators. The number of experts recruited ranged from 22 to 45, with 100.00% response rate, high authority coefficients (0.820-0.914), and high coordination coefficients (0.157-0.741). Most of the studies used literature reviews as one source for the indicator pool (8 studies, 100.00%), employed the Delphi method to reach consensus (6 studies, 75.00%), and provided inclusion criteria for the indicators (7 studies, 87.50%). However, only one study (12.50%) explored the practical application of the developed indicators, and none of the studies set indicator weights or conducted quality assessments. The number of EPA indicators developed ranged from 10 to 38 per study. The reporting of EPA indicators was included in most studies regarding titles (8 studies, 100.00%) and the expected levels of entrustment at various stages of training (6 studies, 75.00%), but the reporting on other aspects was lacking. Among the specialty-specific EPA indicators, 38.39% overlapped with the general EPAs indicators.Conclusions:The research on the development of EPA indicators for residents in China is still in its early stages, and there is room for improvement in methodological quality and reporting coverage. There is partial overlap between specialty-specific and general EPA indicators, failing to fully reflect the unique characteristics of different specialties.
