Cited by 47Innovations in Medical EducationMedical Education and AdmissionsHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Program Director Perceptions of Proficiency in the Core Entrustable Professional Activities

Open access
Pearlman, R. Ellen, Pawelczak, Melissa, Yacht, Andrew C., Akbar, Salaahuddin, Farina, Gino A.·2017·Journal of Graduate Medical Education

Abstract

Background: The Association of American Medical Colleges describes 13 core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) that every graduating medical student should be expected to perform proficiently on day 1 of residency, regardless of chosen specialty. Studies have shown wide variability in program director (PD) confidence in interns' abilities to perform these core EPAs. Little is known regarding comparison of United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores with proficiency in EPAs. Objective: We determined if PDs from a large health system felt confident in their postgraduate year 1 residents' abilities to perform the 13 core EPAs, and compared perceived EPA proficiency with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores. Methods: The PDs were asked to rate their residents' proficiency in each EPA and to provide residents' USMLE scores. Timing coincided with the reporting period for resident milestones. Results: Surveys were completed on 204 of 328 residents (62%). PDs reported that 69% of residents (140 of 204) were prepared for EPA 4 (orders/prescriptions), 61% (117 of 192) for EPA 7 (form clinical questions), 68% (135 of 198) for EPA 8 (handovers), 63% (116 of 185) for EPA 11 (consent), and 38% (49 of 129) for EPA 13 (patient safety). EPA ratings and USMLE 1 and 2 were negatively correlated (r(101) = −0.23, P = .031). Conclusions: PDs felt that a significant percentage of residents were not adequately prepared in order writing, forming clinical questions, handoffs, informed consent, and promoting a culture of patient safety. We found no positive association between USMLE scores and EPA ratings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4300/jgme-d-16-00864.1

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Pearlman, R. E., Pawelczak, M., Yacht, A. C., Akbar, S., & Farina, G. A.
Affiliations
Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Farina, Gino A.
Venue
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Published
2017-10-01
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
588-592
ISSN
  • 1949-8349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-8357
OpenAlex
W2746129468
Cited by
47
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Graduate Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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 › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
program director perceptions, USMLE Step 1 scores, postgraduate year 1 residents, handover, informed consent, patient safety, graduate medical education
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Medical, Humans, Internship and Residency, United States

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