A scoping review of assessment methods of competence of general surgical trainees.

Background: Only rigorous evaluation of competence will result in the production of safe surgeons that are able to provide the best care for patients. The development of competency-based assessment should ultimately be evidence driven.

Objectives: Explore the volume of existing evidence pertaining to the different objective assessment methods reported in the literature.

Eligibility Criteria: Studies describing objective assessment of postgraduate general surgical trainees within the last 20 years.

Sources Of Evidence: PubMed, Ovid Medline and Web of Sciences.

Charting Methods: A data chart proforma was designed and data were extracted into tables. Basic numerical analysis of extracted data and narrative synthesis of charted data.

Results: A total of 343 papers were reviewed. 26 were eligible for inclusion. 92% of articles were published from 2008 onwards. 50% have been published in the last five years. The articles originated from 6 different countries, predominantly the United Kingdom (42%), followed by the United States of America (38%). In addition, a small number were published from Canada (8%), Japan (4%), Germany (4%) and Australia (4%). UK publications were predominantly between 2008 and 2014 while the USA had a later predominance between 2015 and 2018. 42% were based on quantitative methodology, 27% had a qualitative approach while 31% had mixed analysis. There were sixteen assessment methods presented. The most common type of assessment was Objective Structured Assessments (27%), which included Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) (23%) and Objective Structured Assessment of Non-Technical Skill (4%). Procedure Based Assessment (PBA) (23%) and Entrustability Scales (23%) were also prevalent.

Conclusions: This scoping review has identified a range of different assessment methods. The assessment methods with a higher volume and level of supporting evidence were OSATS, PBAs and Entrustability Scales. There was a lower volume and level of supporting evidence found within this review for the remaining assessment methods.