Stakeholders' perception on the implementation of Developmental Progress Assessment: using the Theoretical Domains Framework to document behavioral determinants.

BACKGROUND: The widespread implementation of longitudinal assessment (LA) to document trainees' progression to independent practice rests more on speculative rather than evidence-based benefits. We aimed to document stakeholders' knowledge of- and attitudes towards LA, and identify how the supports and barriers can help or hinder the uptake and sustainable use of LA. METHODS: We interviewed representatives from four stakeholder groups involved in LA. The interview protocols were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which contains a total of 14 behaviour change determinants. Two team members coded the interviews deductively to the TDF, with a third resolving differences in coding. The qualitative data analysis was completed with iterative consultations and discussions with team members until consensus was achieved. Saliency analysis was used to identify dominant domains. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals participated in the study. Three dominant domains were identified. Participants perceive that LA has more positive than negative consequences and requires substantial ressources. All the elements and characteristics of LA are present in our data, with differences between stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Going forward, we could develop and implement tailored and theory driven interventions to promote a shared understanding of LA, and maintain potential positive outcomes while reducing negative ones. Furthermore, ressources to support LA implementation need to be addressed to facilitate its uptake.

Lessons from the implementation of developmental progress assessment: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Educators and researchers recently implemented developmental progress assessment (DPA) in the context of competency-based education. To reap its anticipated benefits, much still remains to be understood about its implementation. In this study, we aimed to determine the nature and extent of the current evidence on DPA, in an effort to broaden our understanding of the major goals and intended outcomes of DPA as well as the lessons learned from how it has been executed in, or applied across, educational contexts. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study based on the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley. Our search strategy yielded 2494 articles. These articles were screened for inclusion and exclusion (90% agreement), and numerical and qualitative data were extracted from 56 articles based on a pre-defined set of charting categories. The thematic analysis of the qualitative data was completed with iterative consultations and discussions until consensus was achieved for the interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Tools used to document DPA include scales, milestones and portfolios. Performances were observed in clinical or standardised contexts. We identified seven major themes in our qualitative thematic analysis: (a) underlying aims of DPA; (b) sources of information; (c) barriers; (d) contextual factors that can act as barriers or facilitators to the implementation of DPA; (e) facilitators; (f) observed outcomes, and (g) documented validity evidences. CONCLUSIONS: Developmental progress assessment seems to fill a need in the training of future competent health professionals. However, moving forward with a widespread implementation of DPA, factors such as lack of access to user-friendly technology and time to observe performance may render its operationalisation burdensome in the context of competency-based medical education.