English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Context   Increasing dissatisfaction with existing methods of assessment in the workplace alongside a national drive towards outcomes-based postgraduate curricula led to a recent overhaul of the way Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) trainees are assessed in the United Kingdom. Programmatic assessment methodology was utilised; the existing ‘tick-box’ approach using workplace-based assessment to demonstrate competencies was de-emphasised and the expertise of trainers used to assess capability relating to fewer, high-level outcomes related to distinct areas of specialist practice.Methods   A thematic analysis was undertaken investigating attitudes from 125 key stakeholders, including trainees and trainers, towards the new assessment strategy in relation to impact on assessment burden and acceptability.Results   This qualitative study suggests increased satisfaction with the transition to an outcomes-based model with capability judged by educational supervisors. However, reflecting frustration relating to current assessment in the workplace, participants felt assessment burden has been significantly reduced. The approach taken was felt to be an improved method for assessing professional practice; there was enthusiasm for this change. However, this research highlights trainee and trainer anxiety regarding how to ‘pass’ these expert judgement decisions of capability in the real world. Additionally, concerns relating to the impact on subgroups of trainees due to the potential influence of implicit biases on the resultant fewer but ‘higher stakes’ interrogative judgements became apparent.Conclusion   The move further towards a constructivist paradigm in workplace assessment in ICM reduces assessment burden yet can provoke anxiety amongst trainees and trainers requiring considered implementation. Furthermore, the perception of potential for bias in global judgements of performance requires further exploration.

‘Ticked off’? Can a new outcomes-based postgraduate curriculum utilising programmatic assessment reduce assessment burden in Intensive Care Medicine?