BACKGROUND: We describe implementation of competency-based postgraduate surgical training, using an entrustable professional activities (EPAs) programme. The programme aims to improve patient outcomes by optimizing supervision of surgical trainees, creating opportunities for additional teaching and feedback. The curriculum was designed to maximize feasibility for implementation within a colorectal surgical department. METHODS: The curriculum was developed using previously described methods by consensus between two consultants within the department. Seven EPAs were identified and described for each grade of trainee. A consultant within the teaching faculty or a delegate is required to assess each EPA and provide formal feedback until the trainee is given permission to act autonomously. RESULTS: It is hoped the programme can progress with minimal disruption to key stakeholders. We will record trainee assessment data anticipating that performance of trainees on other tasks in the future may provide some evidence of validity for the EPA assessments. CONCLUSIONS: There are perceived benefits and problems evident in the EPA model at this early stage of implementation. The programme should result in an increase in the number of formative assessments and feedback opportunities for trainees. The assessment process is familiar to supervisors, which should facilitate implementation of the curriculum. There is concern that supervisors may require further training to ensure the assessment process is objective and reproducible. The EPA programme could make the process of delegating patient care to trainees more transparent, but we have not identified a method of widely disseminating trainee assessment data without the potential to prejudice trainees unfairly.
BACKGROUND: We describe implementation of competency-based postgraduate surgical training, using an entrustable professional activities (EPAs) programme. The programme aims to improve patient outcomes by optimizing supervision of surgical trainees, creating opportunities for additional teaching and feedback. The curriculum was designed to maximize feasibility for implementation within a colorectal surgical department. METHODS: The curriculum was developed using previously described methods by consensus between two consultants within the department. Seven EPAs were identified and described for each grade of trainee. A consultant within the teaching faculty or a delegate is required to assess each EPA and provide formal feedback until the trainee is given permission to act autonomously. RESULTS: It is hoped the programme can progress with minimal disruption to key stakeholders. We will record trainee assessment data anticipating that performance of trainees on other tasks in the future may provide some evidence of validity for the EPA assessments. CONCLUSIONS: There are perceived benefits and problems evident in the EPA model at this early stage of implementation. The programme should result in an increase in the number of formative assessments and feedback opportunities for trainees. The assessment process is familiar to supervisors, which should facilitate implementation of the curriculum. There is concern that supervisors may require further training to ensure the assessment process is objective and reproducible. The EPA programme could make the process of delegating patient care to trainees more transparent, but we have not identified a method of widely disseminating trainee assessment data without the potential to prejudice trainees unfairly.