A realist evaluation of prospective entrustment decisions in paediatric residency clinical competency committees.

Purpose: Making entrustment decisions (granting more responsibility, advancement and graduation) are important actions in medical training that pose risks to trainees and patients if not done well. A previous realist synthesis of the existing literature revealed that clinical competency committees (CCCs) do not typically make deliberate entrustment decisions, instead defaulting to the promotion and graduation of trainees in the absence of red flags. This study sought further understanding of these areas through empirical data.

A realist synthesis of prospective entrustment decision making by entrustment or clinical competency committees.

Introduction: The real-world mechanisms underlying prospective entrustment decision making (PEDM) by entrustment or clinical competency committees (E/CCCs) are poorly understood. To advance understanding in this area, the authors conducted a realist synthesis of the published literature to address the following research question: In E/CCC efforts to make defensible prospective entrustment decisions (PEDs), what works, for whom, under what circumstances and why?

Methods: Realist work seeks to understand the contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) that explain how and why things work (or do not). In the authors' study, contexts included individual E/CCC members, E/CCC structures and processes, and training programmes.