Making sense of competency-based medical education (CBME) literary conversations

A Beme scoping review: Beme Guide No. 78

Bibliographic Data

ID21447273
AuthorsDeena M Hamza (0000-0001-8943-2165, University of Alberta, corresponding author), Karen E Hauer (0000-0002-8812-4045, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA), Anna Oswald (0000-0002-3510-4294, University of Alberta), Elaine Van Melle (0000-0001-5060-6527, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada), Zeenat Ladak (0000-0001-8904-3186, University of Alberta), Ines Zuna (0000-0002-4459-3237, University of Alberta), Mekdes E Assefa (University of Alberta), Gabrielle N Pelletier (University of Alberta), Meghan Sebastianski (0000-0002-5206-8731, Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) SUPPORT Unit Knowledge Translation Platform, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), Diana Keto-Lambert (Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) SUPPORT Unit Knowledge Translation Platform, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), Diana Keto‐Lambert (0000-0002-2317-7269, University of Alberta), Shelley Ross (0000-0001-9581-3191, University of Alberta)
Year2023
Volume45
Issue8
Pages802-815
Publication date2023-08-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedical Teacher (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0142-159X • E-ISSN: 1466-187X
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0142159x.2023.2168525
PMID36668992
OpenAlexW4317600207
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited31

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

Credibility · Health care · Medical education · Political science · Preparedness · Qualitative research · Skepticism · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Innovations in Medical Education · Interprofessional Education and Collaboration · Medicine · Psychology · Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare

Tools

Open DOI