Making sense of competency-based medical education (CBME) literary conversations: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 78

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education (CBME) received increased attention in the early 2000s by educators, clinicians, and policy makers as a way to address concerns about physician preparedness and patient safety in a rapidly changing healthcare environment. Opinions and perspectives around this shift in medical education vary and, to date, a systematic search and synthesis of the literature has yet to be undertaken. The aim of this scoping review is to present a comprehensive map of the literary conversations surrounding CBME. METHODS: Twelve different databases were searched from database inception up until 29 April 2020. Literary conversations were extracted into the following categories: perceived advantages, perceived disadvantages, challenges/uncertainties/skepticism, and recommendations related to CBME. RESULTS: Of the 5757 identified records, 387 were included in this review. Through thematic analysis, eight themes were identified in the literary conversations about CBME: credibility, application, community influence, learner impact, assessment, educational developments, organizational structures, and societal impacts of CBME. Content analysis supported the development of a heat map that provides a visual illustration of the frequency of these literary conversations over time. CONCLUSIONS: This review serves two purposes for the medical education research community. First, this review acts as a comprehensive historical record of the shifting perceptions of CBME as the construct was introduced and adopted by many groups in the medical education global community over time. Second, this review consolidates the many literary conversations about CBME that followed the initial proposal for this approach. These findings can facilitate understanding of CBME for multiple audiences both within and outside of the medical education research community.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.