Competency evaluation of dermatology physicians receiving residency training based on entrustable professional activities
10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20230620-01687
- VernacularTitle:基于置信职业行为的皮肤科住培医师胜任力评价的探索
- Author:
Yuping FU
1
;
Linna LI
;
Xue TIAN
;
Jun LI
;
Hang GAO
;
Jian SUN
Author Information
1. 锦州医科大学附属第一医院皮肤科，锦州 121001
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Entrustable professional activities;
Dermatology;
Standardized residency training;
Competency
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research
2025;24(2):198-203
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the application effect of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in competency evaluation of dermatology residents, to practice the goal of hierarchical progressive training for EPAs competency in dermatology residents, and to improve the competency of physicians.Methods:A questionnaire survey was conducted among 8 clinical instructors and 165 residents who received standardized residency training in Department of Dermatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University, from September 2019 to September 2022, and self-assessment and trainer-assessment were performed based on EPAs. The Kruskal-Wallis H test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparison of entrustable level between the dermatology residents of different grades. Results:The scores of both trainer-assessment and self-assessment based on EPAs increased with the increase in the grade of the resident physicians, and the resident physicians of the third year (the PGY3 group) had the highest levels of trainer-assessment and self-assessment based on EPAs. The resident physicians of all grades showed relatively low assessment scores of EPA4 (making a medical decision), EPA8 (recognize a patient requiring urgent or emergent care and initiate evaluation and management), EPA14 (clinical teaching), and EPA15 (public health events management). There were significant differences in all EPAs items of trainer-assessment and self-assessment between the residents of different grades (Kruskal-Wallis test, P<0.05). There was a significant difference in trainer-assessment between PGY1 and PGY2 and between PGY1 and PGY3 (Bonferroni P correction, P<0.05), while there was no significant difference between the PGY2 and PGY3 groups ( P>0.05). Conclusions:There are differences in the evaluation of EPAs in dermatology residents of different grades, and hierarchical progressive training of EPAs competency can effectively improve the clinical competency of dermatology residents. Given the inconsistency between the scores of self-assessment and trainer-assessment, it is necessary to improve the feedback plan in the future.
