Evaluating competency-based medical education: a systematized review of current practices.

BACKGROUND: Few published articles provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on the topic of evaluating competency-based medical education (CBME) curricula. The purpose of this review is therefore to synthesize the available evidence on the evaluation practices for competency-based curricula employed in schools and programs for undergraduate and postgraduate health professionals. METHOD: This systematized review was conducted following the systematic reviews approach with minor modifications to synthesize the findings of published studies that examined the evaluation of CBME undergraduate and postgraduate programs for health professionals. RESULTS: Thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria and reported evaluation practices in CBME curricula from various countries and regions worldwide, such as Canada, China, Turkey, and West Africa. 57% of the evaluated programs were at the postgraduate level, and 71% were in the field of medicine. The results revealed variation in reporting evaluation practices, with numerous studies failing to clarify evaluations' objectives, approaches, tools, and standards as well as how evaluations were reported and communicated. It was noted that questionnaires were the primary tool employed for evaluating programs, often combined with interviews or focus groups. Furthermore, the utilized evaluation standards considered the well-known competencies framework, specialized association guidelines, and accreditation criteria. CONCLUSION: This review calls attention to the importance of ensuring that reports of evaluation experiences include certain essential elements of evaluation to better inform theory and practice.

Overconfidence, Time-on-Task, and Medical Errors: Is There a Relationship?

Background: Literature suggest that physicians' high level of confidence has a negative impact on medical decisions, and this may lead to medical errors. Experimental research is lacking; however, this study investigated the effects of high confidence on diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Forty internal medicine residents from different hospitals in Saudi Arabia were divided randomly into two groups: A high-confidence group as an experimental and a low-confidence group acting as a control. Both groups solved each of eight written complex clinical vignettes. Before diagnosing these cases, the high-confidence group was led to believe that the task was easy, while the low-confidence group was presented with information from which it could deduce that the diagnostic task was difficult. Level of confidence, response time, and diagnostic accuracy were recorded. Results: The participants in the high-confidence group had a significantly higher confidence level than those in the control group: 0.75 compared to 0.61 (maximum 1.00). However, neither time on task nor diagnostic accuracy significantly differed between the two groups. Conclusion: In the literature, high confidence as one of common cognitive biases has a strong association with medical error. Even though the high-confidence group spent somewhat less time on the cases, suggesting potential premature decision-making, we failed to find differences in diagnostic accuracy. It is suggested that overconfidence should be studied as a personality trait rather than as a malleable characteristic.

Undergraduate-level teaching and learning approaches for interprofessional education in the health professions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although most systematic reviews of interprofessional education (IPE) evaluated the impact of IPE on the students' acquisition of knowledge in relation to other professions, the development of teamwork skills, and the changes in collaborative behaviour, the processes involved in IPE (i.e., approaches to teaching and learning) are under-researched. The purpose of the study was to conduct a systematic review to establish how IPE has been implemented in university-based undergraduate curricula, focusing on the teaching and learning approaches. METHODS: The systematic review was performed in 2020 with three databases: PubMed, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library. Titles and abstracts were included based on pre-identified eligibility criteria. We used the article entitled 'Systematic reviews in medical education: a practical approach: AMEE guide 94' as the basis to establish the aim and methods of the current systematic review from 2010 to 2019. RESULTS: We found 16 articles that met the inclusion criteria and reported the implementation process of IPE in universities from Western, Asian, and African countries. A combination of at least two teaching and learning approaches was used to deliver IPE. The findings indicated that of all the teaching and learning approaches, simulation-based education, e-learning, and problem-based learning were the most prevalent approaches used to deliver IPE. This systematic review also revealed a lack of IPE programmes in the Middle East region. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence synthesised in the current systematic review could support IPE curriculum planners and educators when planning an IPE programme. More global IPE initiatives are required to meet the global health workforce needs. Further studies are required to identify the effectiveness of the different teaching and learning approaches in the development of IPE competencies.