TY - JOUR
T1 - A BEME (Best Evidence in Medical Education) systematic review of the use of workplace-based assessment in identifying and remediating poor performance among postgraduate medical trainees
AU - Barrett, Aileen
AU - Galvin, Rose
AU - Steinert, Yvonne
AU - Scherpbier, Albert
AU - O'Shaughnessy, Ann
AU - Horgan, Mary
AU - Horsley, Tanya
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Barrett et al.; licensee BioMed Central.
PY - 2015/5/8
Y1 - 2015/5/8
N2 - Background: Workplace-based assessments were designed to facilitate observation and structure feedback on the performance of trainees in real-time clinical settings and scenarios. Research in workplace-based assessments has primarily centred on understanding psychometric qualities and performance improvement impacts of trainees generally. An area that is far less understood is the use of workplace-based assessments for trainees who may not be performing at expected or desired standards, referred to within the literature as trainees 'in difficulty' or 'underperforming'. In healthcare systems that increasingly depend on service provided by junior doctors, early detection (and remediation) of poor performance is essential. However, barriers to successful implementation of workplace-based assessments (WBAs) in this context include a misunderstanding of the use and purpose of these formative assessment tools. This review aims to explore the impact - or effectiveness - of workplace-based assessment on the identification of poor performance and to determine those conditions that support and enable detection, i.e. whether by routine or targeted use where poor performance is suspected. The review also aims to explore what effect (if any) the use of WBA may have on remediation or on changing clinical practice. The personal impact of the detection of poor performance on trainees and/or trainers may also be explored. Methods/design: Using BEME (Best Evidence in Medical Education) Collaboration review guidelines, nine databases will be searched for English-language records. Studies examining interventions for workplace-based assessment either routinely or in relation to poor performance will be included. Independent agreement (kappa .80) will be achieved using a randomly selected set of records prior to commencement of screening and data extraction using a BEME coding sheet modified as applicable (Buckley et al., Med Teach 31:282-98, 2009) as this has been used in previous WBA systematic reviews (Miller and Archer, BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.c5064, 2010) allowing for more rigorous comparisons with the published literature. Educational outcomes will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's framework of educational outcomes using Barr's adaptations (Barr et al., Evaluations of interprofessional education; a United Kingdom review of health and social care, 2000) for medical education research. Discussion: Our study will contribute to an ongoing international debate regarding the applicability of workplace-based assessments as a meaningful formative assessment approach within the context of postgraduate medical education. Systematic review registration: The review has been registered by the BEME Collaboration www.bemecollaboration.org .
AB - Background: Workplace-based assessments were designed to facilitate observation and structure feedback on the performance of trainees in real-time clinical settings and scenarios. Research in workplace-based assessments has primarily centred on understanding psychometric qualities and performance improvement impacts of trainees generally. An area that is far less understood is the use of workplace-based assessments for trainees who may not be performing at expected or desired standards, referred to within the literature as trainees 'in difficulty' or 'underperforming'. In healthcare systems that increasingly depend on service provided by junior doctors, early detection (and remediation) of poor performance is essential. However, barriers to successful implementation of workplace-based assessments (WBAs) in this context include a misunderstanding of the use and purpose of these formative assessment tools. This review aims to explore the impact - or effectiveness - of workplace-based assessment on the identification of poor performance and to determine those conditions that support and enable detection, i.e. whether by routine or targeted use where poor performance is suspected. The review also aims to explore what effect (if any) the use of WBA may have on remediation or on changing clinical practice. The personal impact of the detection of poor performance on trainees and/or trainers may also be explored. Methods/design: Using BEME (Best Evidence in Medical Education) Collaboration review guidelines, nine databases will be searched for English-language records. Studies examining interventions for workplace-based assessment either routinely or in relation to poor performance will be included. Independent agreement (kappa .80) will be achieved using a randomly selected set of records prior to commencement of screening and data extraction using a BEME coding sheet modified as applicable (Buckley et al., Med Teach 31:282-98, 2009) as this has been used in previous WBA systematic reviews (Miller and Archer, BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.c5064, 2010) allowing for more rigorous comparisons with the published literature. Educational outcomes will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's framework of educational outcomes using Barr's adaptations (Barr et al., Evaluations of interprofessional education; a United Kingdom review of health and social care, 2000) for medical education research. Discussion: Our study will contribute to an ongoing international debate regarding the applicability of workplace-based assessments as a meaningful formative assessment approach within the context of postgraduate medical education. Systematic review registration: The review has been registered by the BEME Collaboration www.bemecollaboration.org .
KW - Formative assessment
KW - Poor performance
KW - Postgraduate medical education
KW - Remediation
KW - Residency training
KW - Systematic review
KW - Workplace-based assessment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939124374&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13643-015-0056-9
DO - 10.1186/s13643-015-0056-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 25951850
AN - SCOPUS:84939124374
SN - 2046-4053
VL - 4
JO - Systematic Reviews
JF - Systematic Reviews
IS - 1
M1 - 65
ER -