BACKGROUND: The Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme was launched in the United Kingdom in 2007. At its heart was the reliance upon clear, defined curricula, competence-based training and the use of workplace-based assessments to assess the competence. The principle assessments used were Case-based Discussion, Procedure-based Assessments (PBA), Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, and Clinical Evaluation Exercise and a Multisource Feedback tool. METHODS: We report the initial experience with that system, and most importantly, the experience with workplace-based assessment. RESULTS: Themes include issues around faculty development, misuse of assessments, inappropriate timing of assessments, concerns about validity and reliability of the assessments and concerns about the actual process of workplace-based assessments. Of the assessments, the PBA performed best. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence, there has been an increased focus upon faculty development, while some of the assessments have been redesigned in line with the PBA. A global rating scale has been introduced that uses clinical anchors. The rating scales have also been altered with a reduction in the number of ratings while an enhanced description of the complexity of the case has been introduced within the Case-based Discussion and the Clinical Evaluation Exercise. A re-evaluation will take place in the near future.
BACKGROUND: The Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme was launched in the United Kingdom in 2007. At its heart was the reliance upon clear, defined curricula, competence-based training and the use of workplace-based assessments to assess the competence. The principle assessments used were Case-based Discussion, Procedure-based Assessments (PBA), Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, and Clinical Evaluation Exercise and a Multisource Feedback tool. METHODS: We report the initial experience with that system, and most importantly, the experience with workplace-based assessment. RESULTS: Themes include issues around faculty development, misuse of assessments, inappropriate timing of assessments, concerns about validity and reliability of the assessments and concerns about the actual process of workplace-based assessments. Of the assessments, the PBA performed best. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence, there has been an increased focus upon faculty development, while some of the assessments have been redesigned in line with the PBA. A global rating scale has been introduced that uses clinical anchors. The rating scales have also been altered with a reduction in the number of ratings while an enhanced description of the complexity of the case has been introduced within the Case-based Discussion and the Clinical Evaluation Exercise. A re-evaluation will take place in the near future.