No abstract

Purpose The entrustable professional activity (EPA) framework is an assessment approach used to define the educational outcomes of a program by outlining discrete work tasks learners are expected to perform independently upon graduation. This study outlines the development and evaluation of an EPA framework for predoctoral dental education at the University of North Carolina Adams School of Dentistry. Methods The draft EPA framework was created in collaboration with a group of faculty members and included 15 statements that were mapped to relevant Commission on Dental Accreditation standards. The draft EPA framework was distributed to faculty via an electronic survey, requesting participants to evaluate whether the EPAs were well‐defined; observable; measurable; expected of a general dentist; transferable to other practice settings; and required application of relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In addition, participants were asked to identify the percentage of graduates who could perform these tasks independently and whether learners must be able to perform the list of EPAs upon graduation. Results Sixty‐eight faculty members completed the survey (72% response rate); participants represented all divisions across the school and had extensive dental practice experiences. Overall, participants agreed the EPAs met the defined criteria and were considered important for graduates to be able to demonstrate. Feedback from faculty voiced support for the EPA framework and identified concerns regarding the implementation due to potential faculty calibration and time constraints. Conclusion Evidence from this study supports additional research to explore how the EPA framework can be further developed in predoctoral and postgraduate dental education programs.

Curriculum transformations represent opportunities to innovate; however, there are few examples to inform this process. In 2018, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) Adams School of Dentistry began to transform the predoctoral curriculum to improve content integration, enhance team‐based experiences, and develop leaders. Part of this experience has been crafting a conceptual curriculum guide or “blueprint” that outlines a vision for the design process and ensures the transformation achieves its goals. We describe how we created the UNC Blueprint for our revised curriculum, which defines who our graduates are, what they know, and what they can do. This approach has led us to develop a mapping taxonomy to ensure the student outcomes are appropriately aligned with content, instruction, and assessment throughout the curriculum. Last, we encourage others to be agile in their approach, create a common language among their teams, and frequently engage faculty to facilitate the process.

Following the adoption of competency-based education in dentistry in the 1990s, entrustable professional activities (EPAs) were introduced in the field of medicine in the mid-2000s to help educators better determine the competence of trainees. More recently, the field of dental education has begun exploring EPAs as a framework for assessing competence while ensuring compliance with accreditation standards. This paper explores one dental school's process of preparing for implementation of a major curriculum change using an EPA assessment framework, shifting away from the use of singular assessments for competency determination to a global and longitudinal approach using a constellation of data to determine practice readiness. This paper describes how the EPA framework was developed, including the complementary capacities, assessment tool development and programming, and data reporting to follow learner progression and determine practice readiness. We discuss lessons learned leading up to implementation, and we position this perspective as a space to describe opportunities and complexities to consider when using a

Purpose To define faculty needs and services requested for the implementation of a faculty‐centered curriculum support system (i.e., Academic Support Center [ASC]) to assist curriculum redesign. Methods Faculty and students were invited to participate in 60‐min, one‐on‐one interviews to describe pain points in teaching and identify possible support services needed. Benchmarking through surveys of academic deans was also conducted to determine what services other institutions offer. Qualitative memos from interviews and survey data were analyzed to identify salient challenges and outline possible services that could benefit the school. This information was used to create a strategic plan for the ASC. Full‐time faculty were requested to evaluate the ASC 6 and 12 months following the launch of the center in 2019. Results Fifty interviews were conducted with department chairs (n = 10), full‐time faculty (n = 36), and students (n = 4). Six pain points identified by participants were time, resources, knowledge, confidence, organizational structure, and organizational culture. Participants generated solutions related to supporting teaching and learning, enhancing faculty experience, and assisting educational evaluation. Twenty‐two schools responded to the benchmarking survey—approximately half acknowledged a centralized curriculum support service (n = 12, 54.5% of respondents). Services often focused on instructional design, education technology, and faculty onboarding to education. Faculty feedback following the ASC launch was generally positive and demonstrating progress toward the three priorities. Conclusion Needs assessment and benchmarking data can inform the design and implementation of centers that offer faculty‐centered support structures around teaching, educational scholarship, and curriculum change.