Article Text
Abstract
Objectives The introduction of competency-based training has necessitated development and implementation of accompanying mechanisms for assessment. Procedure-based assessments (PBAs) are an example of workplace-based assessments that are used to examine focal competencies in the workplace. The primary objective was to understand surgical trainees' perspective on the value of PBA.
Design Semistructured interviews with 10 surgical trainees individually interviewed to explore their views. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; following this, they were open and axial coded. Thematic analysis was then performed.
Results Semistructured interviews yielded several topical and recurring themes. In trainees' experience, the use of PBAs as a summative tool limits their educational value. Trainees reported a lack of support from seniors and variation in the usefulness of the tool based on stage of training. Concerns related to the validity of PBAs for evaluating trainees' performance with reports of ‘gaming’ the system and trainees completing their own assessments. Trainees did identify the significant value of PBAs when used correctly. Benefits included the identification of additional learning opportunities, standardisation of assessment and their role in providing a measure of progress.
Conclusions The UK surgical trainees interviewed identified both limitations and benefits to PBAs; however, we would argue based on their responses and our experience that their use as a summative tool limits their formative use as an educational opportunity. PBAs should either be used exclusively to support learning or solely as a summative tool; if so, further work is needed to audit, validate and standardise them for this purpose.
- MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING
- EDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)
- SURGERY
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors JS and KI were responsible for project planning and study design. JS conducted interviews and coded data. JS, DCM and KI were responsible for data analysis and interpretation of results. All authors contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and have reviewed the final version before submission.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Imperial College London Education Ethics Review Process (EERP1314-004).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.