To have subject matter experts evaluate the Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency (Core EPAs) with the EQual rubric to determine if revisions were required and, if applicable, how to focus revision efforts.
Ten entrustable professional activity (EPA) experts were invited to evaluate the 13 Core EPAs. Experts had a 6-month window (December 2018–May 2019) to complete the evaluation, which contained the complete EQual rubric and 3 additional prompts, one of which—“Do you think this EPA requires revision?”—was limited to a “yes/no” response. Descriptive statistics for overall and domain-specific EQual rubric scores for each of the 13 Core EPAs were calculated. Free-text responses to why and/or how a Core EPA should be revised were summarized for any Core EPA that scored below a cutoff or for which the majority of experts recommended revision.
Six experts completed the evaluation. Most Core EPAs’ (9/13) overall score was above the cutoff, indicating that they align with the key domains of the EPA construct. The remaining 4 Core EPAs (2, 7, 9, and 13) scored below the overall cutoff, suggesting that they may require revision. A majority of experts felt that Core EPAs 6, 7, 9, and 13 required revision. With regard to domain-specific scores, Core EPAs 2, 3, 7, 9, and 13 were below the discrete units of work cutoff; Core EPAs 7, 9, and 13 were below the entrustable, essential, and important tasks of the profession of medicine cutoff; and Core EPA 9 was below the curricular role cutoff.
The Core EPAs represent a promising initial framework of EPAs for undergraduate medical education. Some Core EPAs might benefit from revision. The process of improving the Core EPAs must continue if they are to standardize outcomes for medical school graduates.