Programme no. 525-OP
Assessment methods in GP training
Søren Prins*1, Roar Maagaard2, Marianne Vedsted3, Andrew Lurie4, Pernille Jørgensen5, Inger Winther6
1Centre for Medical Education,Aarhus University,8200 Aarhus N,Denmark, 2Centre for Medical Education,Aarhus University,Aarhus,Denmark, 3Department of Public Health,Aarhus University,Aarhus,Denmark, 4GP training,Region Zealand,Denmark, 5GP training,Region Capital,Copenhagen,Denmark, 6North Jutland Region,Skive,Denmark
* = Presenting author
Objectives: To select the relevant assessment methods for the 84 competencies in the programme. Then to adapt them to the Danish circumstances.
Background: The field of assessment in specialist training has evolved radically within the last decade. There is a great variety of methods, all with different pros and cons, but no method has proved to be efficient to stand alone. In the development of a new blueprint for the Danish GP specialist training programme, decisions had to be made about how to assess the trainees.
Results: The assessment methods chosen are: Case-based discussion, Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX), Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), Multi-source feedback (MSF) and the newly developed instrument for assessment of the ability to reflect. The judgment by the trainer is given on the form as numeral values on a scale as well as narratives for DOPS, mini-CEX and MSF. The scales used for each method are similar to ones we have found in the literature about the respective method. The forms used for the two other methods serve as instruction for a structured discussion including feedback, and the summative evaluation is pass/fail.
The international literature was revised and inspiration collected from foreign schemes. Emphasis was put on selecting methods that would strengthen learning and feedback as well as provide evidence for summative pass/fail decisions.
We identified 4 validated methods for assessment of different roles and competencies. However, we failed to find a method for assessment of the ability to reflect. A new instrument was therefore developed which will be introduced in another presentation.
All assessment forms were translated and revised to comply with a Danish GP setting. They were sent to a group of experienced trainers who tested them and gave their comments, and the forms were revised again.
Conclusion: No method is suitable to assess all competences, in fact it seems to be necessary to apply several different methods with separate perspectives on the trainees competence in order to get the full picture. With these 5 instruments, we hope to provide better feedback and qualified summative assessment in specialist training.
Points for discussion:
Can these 5 methods be implemented without further need for “education time” in daily practice?
What are the benefits of using different assessment methods in the course of a rotation?
Can compulsory assessment methods throughout the program help us to identify doctors in difficulty earlier?