Defining Trainee Competence

Value Is in the Eye of the Stakeholder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present "Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence," a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors.In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place.There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)760-762
Number of pages3
JournalAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
Volume94
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

trainee
stakeholder
Values
nurse
physician
educator
business management
present
workplace
medicine
leader
performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{fb5cb9a6e06a4254b1955147440a340d,
title = "Defining Trainee Competence: Value Is in the Eye of the Stakeholder",
abstract = "In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present {"}Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence,{"} a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors.In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place.There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.",
author = "Lalena Yarris",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000002643",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "760--762",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining Trainee Competence

T2 - Value Is in the Eye of the Stakeholder

AU - Yarris, Lalena

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present "Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence," a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors.In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place.There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.

AB - In this issue of Academic Medicine, Lundsgaard and colleagues present "Embracing Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives in Defining Trainee Competence," a qualitative exploration of how various stakeholders contribute to the understanding of trainee competence. Drawing on stakeholder theory from business management, the authors of that report explore how the perceptions of key stakeholders (leaders/administrators, nurses/nurse practitioners, trainees, and patients) either confirm, enhance, or complicate the picture of competence that emerges from the perspectives of senior physician supervisors.In this Invited Commentary, the author considers the potential effects of applying stakeholder theory to educational assessment and elaborates on Lundsgaard and colleagues' findings that additional stakeholder perceptions may be redundant in some instances and present conflicting understandings of competence in others. She also emphasizes the importance of a process of defining competence, and ultimately developing assessment programs, that includes measuring and illuminating conflicting perceptions of what constitutes competence. Finally, the author considers potential applications of Lundsgaard and colleagues' results for educators and assessors with comprehensive assessment programs already in place.There are limitations and risks to applying a conceptual framework that aims to increase value for a company to the training of physicians. However, with thoughtful application, incorporating multiple stakeholders into instrument development and workplace-based assessment may provide educators with a more nuanced picture of competence that incorporates the values of those ultimately impacted by trainee performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067278184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067278184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002643

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002643

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 760

EP - 762

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 6

ER -