Cited by 409Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationCompetency Development and Evaluation

Implementation of competency‐based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges?

Hawkins, Richard E, Welcher, Catherine M, Holmboe, Eric S, Kirk, Lynne M, Norcini, John J, Simons, Kenneth B, Skochelak, Susan E·2015·Medical Education

Abstract

Context: Competency‐based medical education (CBME) has emerged as a core strategy to educate and assess the next generation of physicians. Advantages of CBME include: a focus on outcomes and learner achievement; requirements for multifaceted assessment that embraces formative and summative approaches; support of a flexible, time‐independent trajectory through the curriculum; and increased accountability to stakeholders with a shared set of expectations and a common language for education, assessment and regulation. Objectives: Despite the advantages of CBME, numerous concerns and challenges to the implementation of CBME frameworks have been described, including: increased administrative requirements; the need for faculty development; the lack of models for flexible curricula, and inconsistencies in terms and definitions. Additionally, there are concerns about reductionist approaches to assessment in CBME, lack of good assessments for some competencies, and whether CBME frameworks include domains of current importance. This study will outline these issues and discuss the responses of the medical education community. Methods: The concerns and challenges expressed are primarily categorised as: (i) those related to practical, administrative and logistical challenges in implementing CBME frameworks, and (ii) those with more conceptual or theoretical bases. The responses of the education community to these issues are then summarised. Conclusions: The education community has begun to address the challenges involved in implementing CBME. Models and guidance exist to inform implementation strategies across the continuum of education, and focus on the more efficient use of resources and technology, and the use of milestones and entrustable professional activities‐based frameworks. Inconsistencies in CBME definitions and frameworks remain a significant obstacle. Evolution in assessment approaches from in vitro task‐based methods to in vivo integrated approaches is responsive to many of the theoretical and conceptual concerns about CBME, but much work remains to be done to bring rigour and quality to work‐based assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12831

Cites

119 of 119 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
Hawkins, R. E., Welcher, C. M., Holmboe, E. S., Kirk, L. M., Norcini, J. J., Simons, K. B., & Skochelak, S. E.
Affiliations
  • American Medical Association (US)
  • Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
Hawkins, Richard E
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-22
Volume
49
Issue
11
Pages
1086-1102
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2105590394
Cited by
409
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 17
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Medical Association Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Competency Development and Evaluation
Keywords
competency-based medical education, implementation barriers, medical curriculum development, formative and summative assessment, faculty development, entrustable professional activities, milestones, workplace-based assessment, task-based assessment, administrative burden
MeSH terms
Competency-Based Education, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Faculty, Medical, Humans, Learning, Staff Development, Models, Educational

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