A realist evaluation of prospective entrustment decisions in paediatric residency clinical competency committees

Author:

Schumacher Daniel J.12ORCID,Martini Abigail1ORCID,Michelson Catherine34,Turner David A.5,Winn Ariel S.67ORCID,Kinnear Benjamin12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA

2. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA

3. Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Chicago Illinois USA

4. Northwestern University Chicago Illinois USA

5. American Board of Pediatrics Chapel Hill North Carolina USA

6. Boston Children's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA

7. Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA

Abstract

AbstractPurposeMaking entrustment decisions (granting more responsibility, advancement and graduation) are important actions in medical training that pose risks to trainees and patients if not done well. A previous realist synthesis of the existing literature revealed that clinical competency committees (CCCs) do not typically make deliberate entrustment decisions, instead defaulting to the promotion and graduation of trainees in the absence of red flags. This study sought further understanding of these areas through empirical data.MethodsThe authors conducted a realist inquiry to better understand how CCC prospective entrustment decision‐making is carried out in paediatric residency programs. They conducted four CCC meeting observations and 18 interviews with CCC members at eight sites in an effort to confirm, disconfirm, and elaborate an existing theory that was based on a literature synthesis.ResultsThe literature‐based theory held up well against the empiric data collected in this study. Therefore, the authors did not modify that theory and instead developed three new demi‐regularities (recurring patterns in data when conducting realist work) that add detail and nuance to their previous understanding of this model. These new demi‐regularities focus on (i) expounding on how deliberate actions of CCCs focus more on resident development than on resident entrustment; (ii) elucidating that effortful work is not only about reconciling a paucity of data or incongruent data but also working hard to ‘do the right thing’ for residents; and (iii) describing how programs consider bias, equity and fairness, with a wide range of intentionality from being reactive to being proactive.ConclusionThis study offers evidence of deliberate CCC efforts to support resident development. Moving forward, a similar focus should be more consistently placed on equitable entrustment and advancement decisions to balance both of these foundational goals.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3