Inconsistently reporting post-licensure EPA specifications in different clinical professions hampers fidelity and practice translation: a scoping review

Background Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are defined units of professional practice entrusted to professionals once they have attained the specific competencies required to complete the end-to-end task. They provide a contemporary framework for capturing real-world clinical skillsets and integrating clinical education with practice. Our scoping review question was: how are post-licensure EPAs reported in peer reviewed literature, in different clinical professions? Method We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, Arksey and O’Malley and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Searching ten electronic databases returned 1622 articles, with 173 articles included. Data extracted included demographics, EPA discipline, titles and further specifications. Results All articles were published between 2007–2021 across sixteen country contexts. The majority were from North America ( n = 162, 73%) describing medical sub-specialty EPAs ( n = 126, 94%). There were comparably few EPA frameworks reported in clinical professions other than medicine ( n = 11, 6%). Many articles reported only EPA titles without further explanation and limited content validation. The majority did not include information about the EPA design process. Few EPAs and frameworks were reported according to all the recommended EPA attributes. There was unclear distinction between specialty-specific EPAs and those that could be useful across disciplines. Discussion Our review highlights the large volume of EPAs reported in post-licensure medicine, including the volume disparity compared to other clinical professions. Basing our enquiry upon existing guidelines for EPA attributes and features, our experience in conducting the review and our primary finding demonstrated heterogeneity of EPA reporting according to these specifications. To promote EPA fidelity, and quality appraisal, and to reduce interpretation subjectivity, we advocate: diligently reporting EPA attributes and features; including reference or citation to EPA design and content validity information; and considering distinguishing EPAs as specialty-specific or transdisciplinary. Conclusion A large volume of post-licensure EPAs were identified in medicine relative to other clinical professions. EPA specifications were absent or variously reported in the literature, risking ambiguous interpretation. The authors recommend that future EPAs are reported with reference to established and evolving construct recommendations, which is integral to concept fidelity and translation to practice and education.