Many graduate medical education (GME) programs have started to consider and adopt entrustable professional activities (EPAs) in their competency frameworks. Do EPAs also have a place in undergraduate medical education (UME)? In this Perspective article, the authors discuss arguments in favor of the use of EPAs in UME. A competency framework that aligns UME and GME outcome expectations would allow for better integration across the educational continuum. The EPA approach would be consistent with what is known about progressive skill development. The key principles underlying EPAs, workplace learning and trust, are generalizable and would also be applicable to UME learners. Lastly, EPAs could increase transparency in the workplace regarding student abilities and help ensure safe and quality patient care. The authors also outline what UME EPAs might look like, suggesting core, specialty-specific, and elective EPAs related to core clinical residency entry expectations and learner interest. UME EPAs would be defined as essential health care activities with which one would expect to entrust a resident at the beginning of residency to perform without direct supervision. Finally, the authors recommend a refinement and expansion of the entrustment and supervision scale previously developed for GME to better incorporate the supervision expectations for UME learners. They suggest that EPAs could be operationalized for UME if UME-specific EPAs were developed and the entrustment scale were expanded.

/pdf/the-case-for-use-of-entrustable-professional-activities-in-4vc0zyop9q.pdf

The case for use of entrustable professional activities in undergraduate medical education.

Background: Research training is essential in a modern undergraduate medical curriculum. Our evaluation aimed to (a) gauge students’ awareness of research activities, (b) compare students’ perceptions of their transferable and research-specific skills competencies, (c) determine students’ motivation for research and (d) obtain students’ personal views on doing research. Methods: Undergraduate medical students (N=317) completed a research skills questionnaire developed by the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Applied Undergraduate Research Skills (CETLAURS) at Reading University. The questionnaire assessed students’ transferable skills, research-specific skills (e.g., study design, data collection and data analysis), research experience and attitude and motivation towards doing research. Results: The majority of students are motivated to pursue research. Graduate entrants and male students appear to be the most confident regarding their research skills competencies. Although all students recognise the role of research in medical practice, many are unaware of the medical research activities or successes within their university. Of those who report no interest in a career incorporating research, a common perception was that researchers are isolated from patients and clinical practice. Discussion: Students have a narrow definition of research and what it entails. An explanation for why research competence does not align more closely with research motivation is derived from students’ lack of understanding of the concept of translational research, as well as a lack of awareness of the research activity being undertaken by their teachers and mentors. We plan to address this with specific research awareness initiatives. Keywords: undergraduate; research skills; translational research; training; scholarly activity programmes (Published: 10 September 2010) Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5212 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5212

Undergraduate medical research: the student perspective.

The rapid development of new drugs, therapies, and devices has created a dramatic increase in the number of clinical research studies that highlights the need for greater participation in research by physicians as well as patients. Furthermore, the potential of clinical research is unlikely to be reached without greater participation of physicians in research. Physicians face a variety of barriers with regard to participation in clinical research. These barriers are system-or organization-related as well as research-and physician-related. To encourage physician participation, appropriate organizational and operational infrastructures are needed in health care institutes to support research planning and management. All physicians should receive education and training in the fundamentals of research design and methodology, which need to be incorporated into undergraduate medical education and postgraduate training curricula and then reinforced through continuing medical education. Medical schools need to analyze current practices of teaching-learning and research, and reflect upon possible changes needed to develop a 'student-focused teaching-learning and research culture'. This article examines the barriers to and benefits of physician participation in clinical research as well as interventions needed to increase their participation, including the specific role of undergraduate medical education. The main challenge is the unwillingness of many physicians and patients to participate in clinical trials. Barriers to participation include lack of time, lack of resources, trial-specific issues, communication difficulties, conflicts between the role of clinician and scientist, inadequate research experience and training for physicians, lack of rewards and recognition for physicians, and sometimes a scientifically uninteresting research question, among others. Strategies to encourage physician participation in clinical research include financial and nonfinancial incentives, adequate training, research questions that are in line with physician interests and have clear potential to improve patient care, and regular feedback. Finally, encouraging research culture and fostering the development of inquiry and research-based learning among medical students is now a high priority in order to develop more and better clinician-researchers.

/pdf/physician-participation-in-clinical-research-and-trials-4htqtq3k6m.pdf

Physician participation in clinical research and trials: issues and approaches.

Many medical curricula now include programs that provide students with opportunities for scholarship beyond that provided by their traditional, core curricula. These scholarly concentration (SC) programs vary greatly in focus and structure, but they share the goal of producing physicians with improved analytic, creative, and critical-thinking skills. In this article, the authors explore models of both required and elective SC programs. They gathered information through a review of medical school Web sites and direct contact with representatives of individual programs. Additionally, they discuss in-depth the SC programs of the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University; the University of South Florida College of Medicine; the University of California, San Francisco; and Stanford University School of Medicine. The authors describe each program's focus, participation, duration, centralization, capstone requirement, faculty involvement, and areas of concentration. Established to address a variety of challenges in the U.S. medical education system, these four programs provide an array of possible models for schools that are considering the establishment of an SC program. Although data on the impact of SC programs are lacking, the authors believe that this type of program has the potential to significantly impact the education of medical students through scholarly, in-depth inquiry and longitudinal faculty mentorship.

Encouraging scholarship: medical school programs to promote student inquiry beyond the traditional medical curriculum

Context
This article describes the scholarly work that has addressed the fifth recommendation of the 1988 World Conference on Medical Education: ‘Train teachers as educators, not content experts alone, and reward excellence in this field as fully as excellence in biomedical research or clinical practice’.

Progress
Over the past 30 years, scholars have defined the preparation needed for teaching and other educator roles, and created faculty development delivery systems to train teachers as educators. To reward the excellence of educators, scholars have expanded definitions of scholarship, defined educator roles and criteria for judging excellence, and developed educator portfolios to make achievements visible for peer review. Despite these efforts, the scholarship of discovery continues to be more highly prized and rewarded than the scholarship of teaching. These values are deeply embedded in university culture and policies.

Challenges
To remedy the structural inequalities between researchers and educators, a holistic approach to rewarding the broad range of educational roles and educational scholarship is needed. This requires strong advocacy to create changes in academic rewards and support policies, provide a clear career trajectory for educators using learning analytics, expand programmes for faculty development, support health professions education scholarship units and academies of medical educators, and create mechanisms to ensure high standards for all educators.

Developing and rewarding teachers as educators and scholars: remarkable progress and daunting challenges.

PurposeScholarly concentrations (SCs) are elective or required curricular experiences that give students opportunities to study subjects in-depth beyond the conventional medical curriculum and require them to complete an independent scholarly project. This literature review explores the ques

Huiju Carrie Chen

Papers

How to measure success: the impact of scholarly concentrations on students--a literature review.

Does the Duration of a Scholarly Concentration Affect Medical Studentsʼ Productivity