Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2017

Open Access 01-06-2017 | Commentary

We need to talk: clinical competency committees in the key of c(onversation)

Auteurs: Paul A. Hemmer, William F. Kelly

Gepubliceerd in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Uitgave 3/2017

share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
insite
ZOEKEN
Opmerkingen

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Uniformed Services University, the Department of Defense, or other federal agencies.
James Suroweicki’s book, The Wisdom of Crowds [1], provided examples of how diverse, independently deciding individuals make some decisions and predictions better than any individual, even an expert one. However, there have been epic failures where group dynamics derail decision-making and crowds become herds.
Over the past decades, there has been a steady movement towards competency-based medical education accompanied by assessment programs emphasizing the judgment of experts in promotion and progress decisions [2]. While competency committees are not new in undergraduate medical education [3] or graduate medical education [4], they are now required of all residency training programs in the US accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) [5] and will soon be required in training programs in Canada [6]. What is not well understood is how members of a clinical competency committee (CCC) reach a judgment or conclusion. In their article, Chacine et al. report on their synthesis of literature on group decision-making which yielded three orientations (schema, constructivist, and social influence) that are within a context of ‘moderators’ (moderating influences) that can help to frame an approach to examining how CCC decisions are made.
Why is the ‘how’ an important question to answer? Simply put, CCCs represent a visible commitment to the importance of conducting evaluation, reaching judgments, and ensuring fairness to multiple stakeholders – to society, to teachers, and to trainees. Because the work of the CCC is at the very core of the profession of those involved in educational training programs, if we can illuminate and elucidate the elements of how decisions are made, we may develop insight into what makes for highly functioning and effective committees. In short, knowing how a committee arrives at a decision is the first step towards ensuring it is making the best one.

Conversation is the key

Based on our own 30-year experience of placing conversation at the centre of a program of assessment, we believe that the conversation itself holds the key to understanding CCC decisions [3, 716]. Conversation ‘is a progression of exchanges’ among participants; each participant changes internally as a consequence of conveying and generating knowledge [17]. It is here that Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory is relevant [17, 18]. Coming from the field of cybernetics, conversation theory addresses how learning takes place through conversation. At the risk of oversimplification, a series of steps has been summarized as: opening a channel (beginning with a message); commit to engage (engagement on the part of those in the conversation); construct meaning (through an interchange, those involved begin to construct meaning); evolve (participants are in some way changed); converge on agreement (and this includes the ability to ‘teach back’); act or transact (one or more participants agree to do something as a result) [17].
A central feature of conversation theory is ‘reaching agreement over an understanding’ (Converge on Agreement) – in the work of the CCC, this would be the process by which the members reach a decision, consensus, or agreement over the understanding of ‘competence’. The formulation of ‘competence’ might vary depending on the frame of reference (e. g., ACGME, CANMEDS, Entrustable Professional Activities, Reporter-Interpreter-Manager-Educator) but that is the shared understanding which is served by the conversation. While conversation theory would seem most readily applicable to the Constructivist orientation proposed by Chahine et al., it is also relevant to the other orientations. The requirement for the CCC is a recognition of the power of conversation to clarify, calibrate, coordinate, and collaborate. Conversation changes participants in meaningful ways, and understanding how they are changed should be part of the exploration of CCC decision-making.

How do CCCs reach consensus? It probably depends

The authors recognize that the orientations they propose are not mutually exclusive and that it is probable that all orientations are likely to be used, to one degree or another, in the conversations to reach a consensus about trainees – which orientation predominates (if one does) probably depends on the trainee, the CCC members, and the context. In many ways, this is analogous to competence in patient care that involves factors related to the physician, patient, and encounter [19].
competent competency committee must understand the judgments they make, the feedback an individual trainee needs on their growth to independence, and recognize contextual factors that can impact the group’s decision. Awareness of such ‘moderators’ and decision-making pitfalls is essential and one more benefit of examining how decisions are made.
CCC members, typically program faculty and teachers themselves, are likely going to be ‘meaningfully idiosyncratic’ in how they process information and reach a judgment [20]. While this may lead to voicing differing views, it likely represents more ‘signal’ about the trainee than ‘noise’ from the CCC process.
Resources are likely to be a major ‘moderator’, including financial, adequate faculty training and expertise, and especially time, as longer discussions usually produce better learner feedback. Additionally, the complexity and detail of the competency frameworks themselves (e. g., ACGME, CANMEDS) may also impact decision-making, as could the type, size, and scope of the training program.
Pitfalls of group decision-making include reduced efficiency, a diffusion of responsibility (lack of accountability) which can lead to ‘groupthink’. This is an often unconscious desire for harmony (getting along) or for conformity (deferring to leaders with greater ‘psychological size’). However, prior work from nearly 20 years ago has demonstrated that groupthink or dominance by certain individuals was not evident in CCCs at the undergraduate [3] or graduate [4] level in medical education – what mattered was the information being discussed. Having the most junior person speak first and the committee chair speak last (if at all) may help to limit groupthink or individual dominance. Another scenario, ‘group polarization’ or ‘risk shifting’, is related to this and has occurred when the group’s decision is much more extreme than if made by its individual members. ‘Shared information bias’ occurs when members spend all of their time discussing a portion of information they all have and ignore more important information available to a subset of the members. Use of ‘touchstones’ or ground rules for professional discussions, and reflection and feedback after CCC meetings may improve the process.

Next steps

In seeking to address the how of decision-making by members of a CCC, there may be challenges in identifying CCCs to study, such as whether to try to select examples of effective and less effective committees, how to define that effectiveness (which committees made the ‘best’ decisions), and establishing the trustworthiness of the qualitative information likely to be central to this type of study. Nevertheless, by seeking to understand the how, we move forward in our commitment to fairness to society, teachers, and trainees. The authors have suggested a framework to begin the conversation about how CCCs make decisions.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Louis N. Pangaro for his mentorship and conversations.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Anchor Books; 2004, p 336. Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. New York: Anchor Books; 2004, p 336.
2.
go back to reference van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39:309–17.CrossRef van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39:309–17.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gaglione MM, Moores L, Pangaro L, Hemmer PA. Does group discussion of student clerkship performance at an education committee affect an individual committee member’s decisions? Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S55–S8.CrossRef Gaglione MM, Moores L, Pangaro L, Hemmer PA. Does group discussion of student clerkship performance at an education committee affect an individual committee member’s decisions? Acad Med. 2005;80(10 Suppl):S55–S8.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Williams RG, Schwind CJ, Dunnington GL, Fortune J, Rogers D, Boehler M. The effects of group dynamics on resident progress committee deliberations. Teach Learn Med. 2005;17(2):96–100.CrossRef Williams RG, Schwind CJ, Dunnington GL, Fortune J, Rogers D, Boehler M. The effects of group dynamics on resident progress committee deliberations. Teach Learn Med. 2005;17(2):96–100.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hauer KE, Mazotti L, O’Brien B, Hemmer PA, Tong L. Faculty verbal evaluations reveal strategies used to promote medical student performance. Med Educ Online. 2011;16 doi:10.3402/meo.v16i0.6354. Hauer KE, Mazotti L, O’Brien B, Hemmer PA, Tong L. Faculty verbal evaluations reveal strategies used to promote medical student performance. Med Educ Online. 2011;16 doi:10.​3402/​meo.​v16i0.​6354.
8.
go back to reference Hemann BA, Durning SJ, Kelly WF, Dong T, Pangaro LN, Hemmer PA. Referral for competency committee review for poor performance on the internal medicine clerkship is associated with poor performance in internship. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):71–6.CrossRef Hemann BA, Durning SJ, Kelly WF, Dong T, Pangaro LN, Hemmer PA. Referral for competency committee review for poor performance on the internal medicine clerkship is associated with poor performance in internship. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):71–6.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hemann BA, Durning SJ, Kelly WF, Dong T, Pangaro LN, Hemmer PA. The association of students requiring remediation in the internal medicine clerkship with poor performance during internship. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):47–53.CrossRef Hemann BA, Durning SJ, Kelly WF, Dong T, Pangaro LN, Hemmer PA. The association of students requiring remediation in the internal medicine clerkship with poor performance during internship. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):47–53.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hemmer PA, Dadekian GA, Terndrup C, Pangaro LN, Weisbrod AB, Corriere MD, et al. Regular formal evaluation sessions are effective as frame-of-reference training for faculty evaluators of clerkship medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1313–8.CrossRef Hemmer PA, Dadekian GA, Terndrup C, Pangaro LN, Weisbrod AB, Corriere MD, et al. Regular formal evaluation sessions are effective as frame-of-reference training for faculty evaluators of clerkship medical students. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1313–8.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hemmer PA, Hawkins R, Jackson JL, Pangaro LN. Assessing how well three evaluation methods detect deficiencies in medical students’ professionalism in two settings of an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med. 2000;75:167–73.CrossRef Hemmer PA, Hawkins R, Jackson JL, Pangaro LN. Assessing how well three evaluation methods detect deficiencies in medical students’ professionalism in two settings of an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med. 2000;75:167–73.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hemmer PA, Pangaro L. The effectiveness of formal evaluation sessions during clinical clerkships in better identifying students with marginal funds of knowledge. Acad Med. 1997;72:641–3.CrossRef Hemmer PA, Pangaro L. The effectiveness of formal evaluation sessions during clinical clerkships in better identifying students with marginal funds of knowledge. Acad Med. 1997;72:641–3.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hemmer PA, Pangaro L. Using formal evaluation sessions for case-based faculty development during clinical clerkships. Acad Med. 2000;75:1216–21.CrossRef Hemmer PA, Pangaro L. Using formal evaluation sessions for case-based faculty development during clinical clerkships. Acad Med. 2000;75:1216–21.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Lavin B, Pangaro L. Internship ratings as a validity outcome measure for an evaluation system to identify inadequate clerkship performance. Acad Med. 1998;73:998–1002.CrossRef Lavin B, Pangaro L. Internship ratings as a validity outcome measure for an evaluation system to identify inadequate clerkship performance. Acad Med. 1998;73:998–1002.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Noel GL. A system for evaluating and counseling marginal students during clinical clerkships. J Med Educ. 1987;62:353–5. Noel GL. A system for evaluating and counseling marginal students during clinical clerkships. J Med Educ. 1987;62:353–5.
16.
go back to reference Roop SA, Pangaro L. Effect of clinical teaching on student performance during a medicine clerkship. Am J Med. 2001;110:205–9.CrossRef Roop SA, Pangaro L. Effect of clinical teaching on student performance during a medicine clerkship. Am J Med. 2001;110:205–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Durning S, Artino AR Jr., Pangaro L, van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth L. Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ. 2011;45:927–38.CrossRef Durning S, Artino AR Jr., Pangaro L, van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth L. Context and clinical reasoning: understanding the perspective of the expert’s voice. Med Educ. 2011;45:927–38.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gingerich A, Kogan J, Yeates P, Govaerts M, Holmboe E. Seeing the ‘black box’ differently: assessor cognition from three research perspectives. Med Educ. 2014;48:1055–68.CrossRef Gingerich A, Kogan J, Yeates P, Govaerts M, Holmboe E. Seeing the ‘black box’ differently: assessor cognition from three research perspectives. Med Educ. 2014;48:1055–68.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
We need to talk: clinical competency committees in the key of c(onversation)
Auteurs
Paul A. Hemmer
William F. Kelly
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2017
Uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Uitgave 3/2017
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Elektronisch ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0360-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2017

Perspectives on Medical Education 3/2017 Naar de uitgave

The Writer’s Craft

Tuning your writing