Medical Students’ Perspectives on Entrustment Decision-Making in an EPA Assessment Framework: A Secondary Data Analysis

• Published in: Academic medicine
• Main Authors: Caro Monroig, Angeliz M, Chen, H Carrie, Carraccio, Carol, Richards, Boyd F, ten Cate, Olle, Balmer, Dorene F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: by the Association of American Medical Colleges 24-11-2020
• DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003858
• EISSN: 1938-808X
• ISSN: 1040-2446

PURPOSE:Research on how entrustment decisions are made identifies 5 broad influential factors (supervisor, trainee, supervisor–trainee relationship, context, task). However, this literature primarily represents the perspective of supervisors in graduate medical education and is conducted outside of an assessment framework where entrustment decisions have consequences for trainees and for patients. To complement the literature, the authors explored how medical students in a pilot program that used an entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment framework perceived factors influencing entrustment decisions.
METHOD:The authors conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from program evaluation of a pilot project using an entrustment assessment framework to advance students through their curriculum and into residency. Data were derived from 8 focus groups conducted over 4 years (2015–2018) with 27 students who shared their experience of learning and supervision in the project. Sensitized by the entrustment literature, the authors coded and analyzed focus group transcripts according to principles of thematic analysis.
RESULTS:Components of the trainee and supervisor–trainee relationship factors predominated students’ perceptions of entrustment decisions. Students directed their own learning by asking for feedback; seeking opportunities to engage in learning; sharing limitations of their knowledge with supervisors; and pushing supervisors to recalibrate assessments when appropriate. Students’ agentic actions were facilitated by longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships wherein they felt comfortable asking for help and built confidence in caring for patients. Students mentioned components of other factors that influenced entrustment decisions (supervisor, clinical task, clinical context), but did so less frequently and from a non-agentic vantage point.
CONCLUSIONS:Students’ perspectives on entrustment decisions can be derived from their views on learning and supervision in an EPA assessment framework. Their perspectives complement the literature by highlighting students’ agentic actions to influence entrustment decisions and promotion of agentic action through practices incorporating longitudinal supervisor–trainee relationships.