Context Learning outcomes for residency training are defined in competency frameworks such as the CanMEDS framework, which ultimately aim to better prepare residents for their future tasks. Although residents’ training relies heavily on learning through participation in the workplace under the supervision of a specialist, it remains unclear how the CanMEDS framework informs practice‐based learning and daily interactions between residents and supervisors. Objectives This study aimed to explore how the CanMEDS framework informs residents’ practice‐based training and interactions with supervisors. Methods Constructivist grounded theory guided iterative data collection and analyses. Data were collected by direct observations of residents and supervisors, combined with formal and field interviews. We progressively arrived at an explanatory theory by coding and interpreting the data, building provisional theories and through continuous conversations. Data analysis drew on sensitising insights from communities of practice theory, which provided this study with a social learning perspective. Results CanMEDS roles occurred in an integrated fashion and usually remained implicit during interactions. The language of CanMEDS was not adopted in clinical practice, which seemed to impede explicit learning interactions. The CanMEDS framework seemed only one of many factors of influence in practice‐based training: patient records and other documents were highly influential in daily activities and did not always correspond with CanMEDS roles. Additionally, the position of residents seemed too peripheral to allow them to learn certain aspects of the Health Advocate and Leader roles. Conclusions The CanMEDS framework did not really guide supervisors’ and residents’ practice or interactions. It was not explicitly used as a common language in which to talk about resident performance and roles. Therefore, the extent to which CanMEDS actually helps improve residents’ learning trajectories and conversations between residents and supervisors about residents’ progress remains questionable. This study highlights the fact that the reification of competency frameworks into the complexity of practice‐based learning is not a straightforward exercise.

Assigning roles to authentic situations guides supervisors in providing feedback on different CanMEDS roles. We recommend additional supervisor training on how to observe and evaluate the roles.

BackgroundResearch indicates that certain personality traits relate to performance in the medical profession. Yet, personality testing during selection seems ineffective. In this study, we examine the extent to which different medical school selection processes call upon desirable personality characteristics in applicants.Methods1019 of all 1055 students who entered the Dutch Bachelor of Medicine at University of Groningen, the Netherlands in 2009, 2010 and 2011 were included in this study. Students were admitted based on either top pre-university grades (n = 139), acceptance in a voluntary multifaceted selection process (n = 286), or lottery weighted for pre-university GPA. Within the lottery group, we distinguished between students who had not participated (n = 284) and students who were initially rejected (n = 310) in the voluntary selection process. Two months after admission, personality was assessed with the NEO-FFI, a measure of the five factor model of personality. We performed ANCOVA modelling with gender as a covariate to examine personality differences between the four groups.ResultsThe multifaceted selection group scored higher on extraversion than all other groups(p<0.01), higher on conscientiousness than both lottery-admitted groups(p<0.01), and lower on neuroticism than the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in the voluntary selection process. The latter group scored lower on conscientiousness than all other groups(p<0.05) and lower on agreeableness than the multifaceted selection group and the top pre-university group(p<0.01).ConclusionsDifferences between the four admission groups, though statistically significant, were relatively small. Personality scores in the group admitted through the voluntary multifaceted selection process seemed most fit for the medical profession. Personality scores in the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in this process seemed least fit for the medical profession. It seems that in order to select applicants with suitable personalities, an admission process that calls upon desirable personality characteristics is beneficial.