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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
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 pre-
sented. 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
