1,251
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Articles

Where do we go from here? Moving from systems-based practice process measures to true competency via developmental milestones

, &
Article: 24441 | Received 25 Mar 2014, Accepted 28 May 2014, Published online: 27 Jun 2014
 

Abstract

For many educators it has been challenging to meet the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's requirements for teaching systems-based practice (SBP). An additional layer of complexity for educators is evaluating competency in SBP, despite milestones and entrustable professional activities (EPAs). In order to address this challenge, the authors present the results of a literature review for how SBP is currently being taught and a series of recommendations on how to achieve competency in SBP for graduate medical trainees with the use of milestones. The literature review included 29 articles and demonstrated that only 28% of the articles taught more than one of the six core principles of SBP in a meaningful way. Only 7% of the articles received the highest grade of A. The authors summarize four guiding principles for creating a competency-based curriculum that is in alignment with the Next Accreditation System (NAS): 1) the curriculum needs to include all of the core principles in that competency, 2) the objectives of the curriculum should be driven by clinical outcomes, 3) the teaching modalities need to be interactive and clinically relevant, and 4) the evaluation process should be able to measure competency and be directly reflective of pertinent milestones and/or EPAs. This literature review and the provided guiding principles can guide other residency educators in their development of competency-based curricula that meets the standards of the NAS.

Acknowledgement

This publication was made possible by Grant Number 1P60MD003421 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH/NIMHD.

Conflict of interest and funding

All three authors report no conflict of interest.