Reflections on current methods for evaluating skills during joint replacement surgery : A scoping review

Total knee replacement utilization in the United States more than doubled from 1999 to 2008. Although the reasons for this increase have not been examined rigorously, some have attributed the increase to population growth and the obesity epidemic. Our goal was to investigate whether the rapid increase in total knee replacement use over the past decade can be sufficiently attributed to changes in these two factors. We used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to estimate changes in total knee replacement utilization rates from 1999 to 2008, stratified by age (eighteen to forty-four years, forty-five to sixty-four years, and sixty-five years or older). We obtained data on obesity prevalence and U.S. population growth from federal sources. We compared the rate of change in total knee replacement utilization with the rates of population growth and change in obesity prevalence from 1999 to 2008. In 2008, 615,050 total knee replacements were performed in the United States adult population, 134% more than in 1999. During the same time period, the overall population size increased by 11%. While the population of forty-five to sixty-four-year-olds grew by 29%, the number of total knee replacements in this age group more than tripled. The number of obese and non-obese individuals in the United States increased by 23% and 4%, respectively. Assuming unchanged indications for total knee replacement among obese and non-obese individuals with knee osteoarthritis over the last decade, these changes fail to account for the 134% growth in total knee replacement use. Population growth and obesity cannot fully explain the rapid expansion of total knee replacements in the last decade, suggesting that other factors must also be involved. The disproportionate increase in total knee replacements among younger patients may be a result of a growing number of knee injuries and expanding indications for the procedure.

This paper aims to describe current views of the relationship between competence and performance and to delineate some of the implications of the distinctions between the two areas for the purpose of assessing doctors in practice. During a 2-day closed session, the authors, using their wide experiences in this domain, defined the problem and the context, discussed the content and set up a new model. This was developed further by e-mail correspondence over a 6-month period. Competency-based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in testing situations, while performance-based assessments were defined as measures of what doctors do in practice. The distinction between competency-based and performance-based methods leads to a three-stage model for assessing doctors in practice. The first component of the model proposed is a screening test that would identify doctors at risk. Practitioners who 'pass' the screen would move on to a continuous quality improvement process aimed at raising the general level of performance. Practitioners deemed to be at risk would undergo a more detailed assessment process focused on rigorous testing, with poor performers targeted for remediation or removal from practice. We propose a new model, designated the Cambridge Model, which extends and refines Miller's pyramid. It inverts his pyramid, focuses exclusively on the top two tiers, and identifies performance as a product of competence, the influences of the individual (e.g. health, relationships), and the influences of the system (e.g. facilities, practice time). The model provides a basis for understanding and designing assessments of practice performance.

Increased attention is being paid to the specification of learning outcomes.This paper provides a framework based on the three-circle model: what the doctor should be able to do ('doing the right thing'), the approaches to doing it ('doing the thing right') and the development of the individual as a professional ('the right person doing it').Twelve learning outcomes are specified, and these are further subdivided.The different outcomes have been defined at an appropriate level of generality to allow adaptability to the phases of the curriculum, to the subject matter, to the instructional methodology and to the students' learning needs. Outcomes in each of the three areas have distinct underlying characteristics.They move from technical competences or intelligences to meta-competences including academic, emotional, analytical, creative and personal intelligences. The Dundee outcome model offers an intuitive, user-friendly and transparent approach to communicating learning outcomes. It encourages a holistic and integrated approach to medical education and helps to avoid tension between vocational and academic perspectives.The framework can be easily adapted to local needs. It emphasizes the relevance and validity of outcomes to medical practice.The model is relevant to all phases of education and can facilitate the continuum between the different phases. It has the potential of facilitating a comparison between different training programmes in medicine and between different professions engaged in health care delivery.