Cited by 107Innovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and AdmissionsHealth and Medical Education

Revisiting the Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency

Abstract

The Core EPAs for Entering Residency Pilot project aimed to test the feasibility of implementing 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) at 10 U.S. medical schools and to gauge whether the use of the Core EPAs could improve graduates’ performance early in residency. In this manuscript, the authors (members of the pilot institutions and Association of American Medical Colleges staff supporting the project evaluation) describe the schools’ capacity to collect multimodal evidence about their students’ performance in each of the Core EPAs and the ability of faculty committees to use those data to make decisions regarding learners’ readiness for entrustment. In reviewing data for each of the Core EPAs, the authors reflected on how each activity performed as an EPA informed by how well it could be assessed and entrusted. For EPAs that did not perform well, the authors examined whether there are underlying practical and/or theoretical issues limiting its utility as a measure of student performance in medical school.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000004088

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amiel, J. M., Andriole, D. A., Biskobing, D. M., Brown, D. R., Cutrer, W. B., Emery, M. T., Mejicano, G. C., Ryan, M. S., Swails, J. L., & Wagner, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Association of American Medical Colleges (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Amiel, Jonathan M.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2021-06-30
Volume
96
Issue
7S
Pages
S14-S21
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175333387
Cited by
107
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
12.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
entrustable professional activities, residency training, medical education assessment, multimodal assessment, entrustment, graduate medical education, faculty decision-making, pilot program evaluation
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Cooperative Behavior, Diagnosis, Differential, Documentation, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Humans, Informed Consent, Internship and Residency, Interprofessional Relations, Medical History Taking, Physical Examination, Pilot Projects, Safety Management, Evidence-Based Medicine, Patient Safety, Patient Handoff

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review