Making prospective entrustment decisions: Knowing limits, seeking help and defaulting.
Saved in:
| Title: | Making prospective entrustment decisions: Knowing limits, seeking help and defaulting. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Schumacher, Daniel J., Michelson, Catherine, Winn, Ariel S., Turner, David A., Elshoff, Ethan, Kinnear, Benjamin |
| Source: | Medical Education. Sep2022, Vol. 56 Issue 9, p892-900. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Statistics, Grounded theory, Decision making, Graduate education, Clinical competence, Statistical sampling, Data analysis, Trust, Medical education |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Many studies focused on entrustment have not considered prospective entrustment decisions, where clinical competency and entrustment committees determine how much supervision trainees will require in the future for tasks occurring in not completely known contexts. The authors sought to explore factors that influence and determine prospective entrustment decisions made by members of such committees in graduate medical education (GME) and undergraduate medical education (UME). Methods: The authors conducted a constructivist grounded theory study with 23 faculty participants from GME and UME clinical competency and entrustment committees in the United States between October 2020 and March 2021. Interviews sought to explore factors and considerations participants weigh in making prospective entrustment decisions about trainees. Data collection and analysis occurred in an iterative fashion, ensuring constant comparison. Theoretical sampling was used to confirm, disconfirm and elaborate on the evolving results. Results: Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help is the foundation of participants' prospective entrustment decision making. Most participants, however, describe a presumption of trainee readiness to progress and describe commonly making default prospective entrustment decisions unless 'red flags' in performance are present. Although participants desire sufficient and trusted data about trainee performance to inform decisions, they often lack it. Finally, the perceived permanence and consequences of prospective entrustment decisions influence how participants weigh other factors contributing to prospective entrustment decisions. Conclusion: Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help appears to be the foundation of prospective entrustment decision making. Training programmes should strive to collect and employ robust data supporting and questioning the presence of these attributes. Schumacher et al highlight how clinical competency/entrustment committee members place considerable value on trainees knowing their limits and seeking help when making decisions about entrusting trainees in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Introduction: Many studies focused on entrustment have not considered prospective entrustment decisions, where clinical competency and entrustment committees determine how much supervision trainees will require in the future for tasks occurring in not completely known contexts. The authors sought to explore factors that influence and determine prospective entrustment decisions made by members of such committees in graduate medical education (GME) and undergraduate medical education (UME). Methods: The authors conducted a constructivist grounded theory study with 23 faculty participants from GME and UME clinical competency and entrustment committees in the United States between October 2020 and March 2021. Interviews sought to explore factors and considerations participants weigh in making prospective entrustment decisions about trainees. Data collection and analysis occurred in an iterative fashion, ensuring constant comparison. Theoretical sampling was used to confirm, disconfirm and elaborate on the evolving results. Results: Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help is the foundation of participants' prospective entrustment decision making. Most participants, however, describe a presumption of trainee readiness to progress and describe commonly making default prospective entrustment decisions unless 'red flags' in performance are present. Although participants desire sufficient and trusted data about trainee performance to inform decisions, they often lack it. Finally, the perceived permanence and consequences of prospective entrustment decisions influence how participants weigh other factors contributing to prospective entrustment decisions. Conclusion: Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help appears to be the foundation of prospective entrustment decision making. Training programmes should strive to collect and employ robust data supporting and questioning the presence of these attributes. Schumacher et al highlight how clinical competency/entrustment committee members place considerable value on trainees knowing their limits and seeking help when making decisions about entrusting trainees in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.14797 |
