Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
The clinical competency committee (CCC) comprises a group of clinical faculty tasked with assessing a medical trainee’s progress from multiple data sources. The use of previously undocumented data, or PUD, during CCC deliberations remains controversial. This study explored the use of previously undocumented data in conjunction with documented data in creating a meaningful assessment in a CCC.
Methods
An instrumental case study of a CCC that uses previously undocumented data was conducted. A single CCC meeting was observed, followed by semi-structured individual interviews with all CCC members (n = 7). Meeting and interview transcripts were analyzed iteratively.
Results
Documented data were perceived as limited by inaccurate or superficial data, but sometimes served as a starting point for invoking previously undocumented data. Previously undocumented data were introduced as summary impressions, contextualizing factors, personal anecdotes and, rarely, hearsay. The purpose was to raise a potential issue for discussion, enhance and elaborate an impression, or counter an impression. Various mechanisms allowed for the responsible use of previously undocumented data: embedding these data within a structured format; sharing relevant information without commenting beyond one’s scope of experience; clarifying allowable disclosure of personal contextual factors with the trainee pre-meeting; excluding previously undocumented data not widely agreed upon in decision-making; and expecting these data to have been provided as direct feedback to trainees pre-meeting.
Discussion
Previously undocumented data appear to play a vital part of the group conversation in a CCC to create meaningful, developmentally focused trainee assessments that cannot be achieved by documented data alone. Consideration should be given to ensuring the thoughtful incorporation of previously undocumented data as an essential part of the CCC assessment process.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Hauer KE, Ten Cate O, Holmboe E, et al. Ensuring resident competence: A narrative review of the literature on group decision-making to inform the work of clinical competency committees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8:156–64.
2. Holmboe ES, Yamazaki K, Edgar L, et al. Reflections on the first 2 years of milestone implementation. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:506–12.
3. French JC, Dannefer EF, Colbert CY. A systematic approach toward building a fully operational clinical competency committee. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:e22–e7.
4. Hauer KE, Chesluk B, Iobst W, et al. Reviewing residents’ competence: a qualitative study of the role of clinical competency committees in performance assessment. Acad Med. 2015;90:1084–92.
5. Andolsek K, Padmore J, Hauer KE, Holmboe E. Clinical competency committees: a guidebook for programs [Internet]. 2nd ed. Accreditation council for graduate medical education; 2017. 1–73 p. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/ACGMEClinicalCompetencyCommitteeGuidebook.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2019
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献