2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Core competencies for a biomedical laboratory scientist – a Delphi study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          After completing university education, biomedical laboratory scientists work in clinical laboratories, in biomedical research laboratories, in biotech, and in pharmaceutical companies. Laboratory diagnostics have undergone rapid development over the recent years, with the pace showing no signs of abatement. This rapid development challenges the competence of the staff and will most certainly influence the education of future staff. This study aimed to examine what was considered the necessary competencies needed to pursue a career as a biomedical laboratory scientist.

          Methods

          A modified Delphi technique was used, with the panel of experts expressing their views in a series of three questionnaire. Consensus was defined as the point which 75 % or more of the panel participants agreed that a particular competency was necessary.

          Results

          The study highlights the perceived importance of mostly generic competencies that relate to quality, quality assurance, and accuracy, as well as different aspects of safety, respect, trustworthiness (towards patients/clients and colleagues), and communication skills. The results also stress the significance of self-awareness and professionality.

          Conclusions

          We identified important competencies for biomedical laboratory scientists. Together with complementary information from other sources, i.e., guidelines, laws, and scientific publications, the competencies identified can be used as learning outcomes in a competency-based education to provide students with all the competencies needed to work as professional biomedical laboratory scientists.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03509-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The qualitative content analysis process.

          This paper is a description of inductive and deductive content analysis. Content analysis is a method that may be used with either qualitative or quantitative data and in an inductive or deductive way. Qualitative content analysis is commonly used in nursing studies but little has been published on the analysis process and many research books generally only provide a short description of this method. When using content analysis, the aim was to build a model to describe the phenomenon in a conceptual form. Both inductive and deductive analysis processes are represented as three main phases: preparation, organizing and reporting. The preparation phase is similar in both approaches. The concepts are derived from the data in inductive content analysis. Deductive content analysis is used when the structure of analysis is operationalized on the basis of previous knowledge. Inductive content analysis is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented. A deductive approach is useful if the general aim was to test a previous theory in a different situation or to compare categories at different time periods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

            To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Competency-based medical education: theory to practice.

              Although competency-based medical education (CBME) has attracted renewed interest in recent years among educators and policy-makers in the health care professions, there is little agreement on many aspects of this paradigm. We convened a unique partnership - the International CBME Collaborators - to examine conceptual issues and current debates in CBME. We engaged in a multi-stage group process and held a consensus conference with the aim of reviewing the scholarly literature of competency-based medical education, identifying controversies in need of clarification, proposing definitions and concepts that could be useful to educators across many jurisdictions, and exploring future directions for this approach to preparing health professionals. In this paper, we describe the evolution of CBME from the outcomes movement in the 20th century to a renewed approach that, focused on accountability and curricular outcomes and organized around competencies, promotes greater learner-centredness and de-emphasizes time-based curricular design. In this paradigm, competence and related terms are redefined to emphasize their multi-dimensional, dynamic, developmental, and contextual nature. CBME therefore has significant implications for the planning of medical curricula and will have an important impact in reshaping the enterprise of medical education. We elaborate on this emerging CBME approach and its related concepts, and invite medical educators everywhere to enter into further dialogue about the promise and the potential perils of competency-based medical curricula for the 21st century.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                anna.gustafsson@mau.se
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                20 June 2022
                20 June 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 476
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.32995.34, ISNI 0000 0000 9961 9487, Department of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health and Society, , Malmö University, ; Malmö, Sweden
                [2 ]GRID grid.32995.34, ISNI 0000 0000 9961 9487, Biofilms Research Center for Biointerfaces, , Malmö University, ; Malmö, Sweden
                [3 ]GRID grid.4514.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0930 2361, Center for Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Medicine, , Lund University, ; Lund, Sweden
                [4 ]GRID grid.32995.34, ISNI 0000 0000 9961 9487, University Executive Office, Malmö University, ; Malmö, Sweden
                Article
                3509
                10.1186/s12909-022-03509-1
                9208704
                35725406
                2b17badf-de92-4119-ab2b-41eae6e4d411
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 13 January 2022
                : 30 May 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Malmö University
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Education
                core curriculum,core competencies,delphi,biomedical laboratory scientists,student,expert group,biomedical laboratory scientist degree

                Comments

                Comment on this article