Assessing the utility of a novel entrustment-supervision assessment tool

Abstract

Background: Work-based assessments (WBAs) are increasingly used to inform decisions about trainee progression. Unfortunately, WBAs often fail to discriminate between trainees of differing abilities and have poor reliability. Entrustment-supervision scales may improve WBA performance, but there is a paucity of literature directly comparing them to traditional WBA tools. Methods: The Ottawa Emergency Department Shift Observation Tool (O-EDShOT) is a previously published WBA tool employing an entrustment-supervision scale with strong validity evidence. This pre-/post-implementation study compares the performance of the O-EDShOT with that of a traditional WBA tool using norm-based anchors. All assessments completed in 12-month periods before and after implementing the O-EDShOT were collected, and generalisability analysis was conducted with year of training, trainees within year and forms within trainee as nested factors. Secondary analysis included assessor as a factor. Results: A total of 3908 and 3679 assessments were completed by 99 and 116 assessors, for 152 and 138 trainees in the pre- and post-implementation phases respectively. The O-EDShOT generated a wider range of awarded scores than the traditional WBA, and mean scores increased more with increasing level of training (0.32 vs. 0.14 points per year, p = 0.01). A significantly greater proportion of overall score variability was attributable to trainees using the O-EDShOT (59%) compared with the traditional tool (21%, p < 0.001). Assessors contributed less to overall score variability for the O-EDShOT than for the traditional WBA (16% vs. 37%). Moreover, the O-EDShOT required fewer completed assessments than the traditional tool (27 vs. 51) for a reliability of 0.8. Conclusion: The O-EDShOT outperformed a traditional norm-referenced WBA in discriminating between trainees and required fewer assessments to generate a reliable estimate of trainee performance. More broadly, this study adds to the body of literature suggesting that entrustment-supervision scales generate more useful and reliable assessments in a variety of clinical settings.