Pinilla, Severin; Lenouvel, Eric; Strik, Werner; Klöppel, Stefan; Nissen, Christoph; Huwendiek, Sören (2020). Entrustable professional activities in psychiatry: a systematic review. Academic psychiatry, 44(1), pp. 37-45. Springer 10.1007/s40596-019-01142-7
![[img]](https://boris.unibe.ch/134052/1/Figure_Search%20Flow.png)
|
Image
Figure_Search Flow.png - Supplemental Material Available under License BORIS Standard License. Material is supplemental and was not part of the manuscript accepted by the journal. Download (131kB) | Preview |
|
|
Text
2019_Pinilla_EPAs in psychiatry_review.pdf - Published Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (319kB) | Preview |
|
|
Text
Supplemental%20Table%201_Data%20extraction%20and%20QATSDD.pdf - Supplemental Material Available under License BORIS Standard License. Material is supplemental and was not part of the manuscript accepted by the journal. Download (90kB) | Preview |
Objective
Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) represent discrete clinical tasks that can be entrusted to trainees in psychiatry. They are increasingly being used as educational framework in several countries. However, the empirical evidence available has not been synthesized in the field of psychiatry. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review in order to summarize and evaluate the available evidence in the field of EPAs in undergraduate and graduate medical education in psychiatry.
Methods
The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Embase, PsycINFO, all Ovid journals, Scopus, Web of Science, MedEdPORTAL and the archives of Academic Psychiatry for articles reporting quantitative and qualitative research as well as educational case reports on EPAs in undergraduate and graduate psychiatry education published since 2005. All included articles were assessed for content (development, implementation and assessment of EPAs) and quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.
Results
The authors screened 2,807 records and included a total of 20 articles in the final data extraction. Most studies were expert consensus reports (n = 6, 30%) and predominantly conducted in English-speaking countries (n = 17, 85%). Papers reported mainly EPA-development and/or EPA-implementation studies (n = 14, 70%), whereas EPA-assessment studies were less frequent (n = 6, 30%). Publications per year showed an increasing trend both in quantity (from 1 in 2011 to 7 in 2018) and quality (from a QATSDD-score of 27 in 2011 to an average score of 39 in 2018). The main focus of the articles was the development of individual EPAs on different levels of training for psychiatry or on curricular frameworks based on EPAs in psychiatry (n = 10, 50%). The lack of empirical controlled studies does currently not allow for meta-analyses of educational outcomes.
Conclusion
The concept of EPA-based curricula seems to become increasingly present a focus in the specialty of psychiatry both in UME and GME. The lack of empirical research in this context is an important limitation for educational practice recommendations. Currently there is only preliminary but promising data available for using EPAs with regards to educational outcomes. EPAs seem to be effectively used from a curriculum design perspective for UME and GME in psychiatry.
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |