Article Text
Abstract
Objectives To gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence assessment.
Methods We used a qualitative approach through online focus groups (FGs) of rheumatology trainers and trainees, separately. The study included five countries—Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. A summary of current practices of assessment of competences was developed, modified and validated by the FGs based on an independent response to a questionnaire. A prioritising method (9 Diamond technique) was then used to identify and justify key assessment priorities.
Results Overall, 26 participants (12 trainers, 14 trainees) participated in nine online FGs (2 per country, Slovenia 1 joint), totalling 12 hours of online discussion. Strong nationally (the Netherlands, UK) or institutionally (Spain, Slovenia, Denmark) standardised approaches were described. Most groups identified providing frequent formative feedback to trainees for developmental purposes as the highest priority. Most discussions identified a need for improvement, particularly in developing streamlined approaches to portfolios that remain close to clinical practice, protecting time for quality observation and feedback, and adopting systematic approaches to incorporating teamwork and professionalism into assessment systems.
Conclusion This paper presents a clearer picture of the current practice on the assessment of competences in rheumatology in five European countries and the underlying rationale of trainers’ and trainees’ priorities. This work will inform EULAR Points-to-Consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology training across Europe.
- Autoimmunity
- Early rheumatoid arthritis
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Synovitis
- Treatment
- Sjøgren’s syndrome
- Tcells
- Chondrocalcinosis
- Gout
- Health services research
- Synovial fluid
- Ankylosing spondylitis
- Spondyloarthritis
- Outcomes research
- Epidemiology
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter Aurélie Najm@AurelieRheumo.
Contributors AN, AA, SR, FS and CH and the Working Group have contributed to the design of the study. AN and CH have organised and analysed the data of the focus groups. AN, AA, SR, FS, CH and the Working Group have contributed to the drafting of the manuscript and have approved the final version to be submitted.
Funding This project was supported by a EULAR grant (EDU043).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Data sharing statement Data are available upon reasonable request.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.