Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jun;112(6):236-244.
doi: 10.1177/0141076819848113. Epub 2019 May 24.

Assessing professional competence: a critical review of the Annual Review of Competence Progression

Affiliations
Review

Assessing professional competence: a critical review of the Annual Review of Competence Progression

Katherine Woolf et al. J R Soc Med. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

The Annual Review of Competence Progression is used to determine whether trainee doctors in the United Kingdom are safe and competent to progress to the next training stage. In this article we provide evidence to inform recommendations to enhance the validity of the summative and formative elements of the Annual Review of Competency Progression. The work was commissioned as part of a Health Education England review. We systematic searched the peer reviewed and grey literature, synthesising findings with information from national, local and specialty-specific Annual Review of Competence Progression guidance, critically evaluating the findings in the context of literature on assessing competence in medical education. National guidance lacked detail resulting in variability across locations and specialties, threatening validity and reliability. Trainees and trainers were concerned that the Annual Review of Competence Progression only reliably identifies the most poorly performing trainees. Feedback is not routinely provided, which can leave those with performance difficulties unsupported and high performers demotivated. Variability in the provision and quality of feedback can negatively affect learning. The Annual Review of Competence Progression functions as a high-stakes assessment, likely to have a significant impact on patient care. It should be subject to the same rigorous evaluation as other high-stakes assessments; there should be consistency in procedures across locations, specialties and grades; and all trainees should receive high-quality feedback.

Keywords: ARCP; Assessment; competence; formative; summative.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Variability in the percentage of ‘unsatisfactory’ ARCP outcomes awarded to trainees from 2010 to 2016 across 13 specialties in two Health Education England Local Education and Training Boards: Thames Valley and East of England. ACCS: acute care common stem; CAT: core anaesthetics training; CMT: core medical training; CPT: core psychiatry training; CST: core surgical training; EM: emergency medicine; GP: general practice; O&G: obstetrics & gynaecology; Clin onc: clinical oncology; Clin rad: clinical radiology. Data from http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/14105.asp

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. A Reference Guide for Postgraduate Specialty Training in the UK: The Gold Guide. 6th Edition ed.: Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans of the United Kingdom, 2016.
    1. Barrett A, Galvin R, Steinert Y, et al. A BEME (Best Evidence in Medical Education) systematic review of the use of workplace-based assessment in identifying and remediating poor performance among postgraduate medical trainees. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 65–65. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kogan JR, Holmboe ES, Hauer KE. Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA 2009; 302: 1316–1326. - PubMed
    1. Massie J, Ali JM. Workplace-based assessment: a review of user perceptions and strategies to address the identified shortcomings. Adv Health Sci Educ 2016; 21: 455–473. - PubMed
    1. Miller A, Archer J. Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors’ education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ 2010; 341: c5064–c5064. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms