Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Editors’ View

Assessment of competence

James P. Waddell
CAN J SURG October 01, 1999 42 (5) 324;
James P. Waddell
Roles: Coeditor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Few issues in medicine are as controversial as the assessment of competence for practising clinicians. Even the assessment of competence to begin practice varies widely from one specialty to another. Given that the initial assessment of competence by either the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada or an equivalent body is highly disparate, it is not surprising that the assessment of competence at some time after the physician has entered practice is also fragmented and highly variable.

For interventional specialties such as Surgery, the initial assessment of competence by examination rarely, if ever, includes a technical component. The assessment of technical skill resides primarily with the faculty members of the training program and is attested to by the program director at the time the candidate sits the fellowship examination. Therefore, in the measurement of competence for practising physicians there is no practical replacement for this assessment. Since competence in interventional specialties should test both cognitive and technical skills, it is imperative that whatever method of assessing continuing competence is adopted, both skill sets are examined.

At present there is no mandatory recertification of practising surgeons in Canada. Demonstrated continuous professional development is accepted as evidence of mintenance of competence. Is this appropriate? Would anyone accept an initial assessment of competence (i.e., entry into specialized practice) on the basis of a residency program in which the requisite number of hours of both didactic and practical learning had been completed, but no assessment of knowledge or skill was included?

Almost all American boards now have mandatory recertification for practitioners originally credentialled by them. There are several pathways to recertification, but all require an examination of either knowledge base or clinical skill or a combination of the two. In those surgical specialties that offer either a written examination 10 years after entering clinical practice or an oral examination based on the certificant’s own practice, the pass rate on the written examination is extremely high (virtually 100%) but on the oral examination is substantially lower. This suggests that true peer review of one’s practice may provide a better assessment of competence.

As the public moves toward closer scrutiny of physician credentialling and competence, it is imperative that surgeons demonstrate a willingness to develop meaningful methods of assuring continuing competence in their chosen specialty. Surgical specialties should each set their own programs for assuring continued competency of their membership. These programs should be undertaken with the full participation of the membership of the specialty organization, and compliance with the program should be strongly encouraged. Provincial colleges who bear the responsibility of ensuring that physicians who work within their jurisdiction are competent would be receptive to suggestions from the profession as to the best way to assess the competence of practising surgeons. We should help, not hinder, this process, and our professional associations should enter into a dialogue with provincial colleges to ensure this important process is fair and effective.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 42 (5)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 42, Issue 5
1 Oct 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessment of competence
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Assessment of competence
James P. Waddell
CAN J SURG Oct 1999, 42 (5) 324;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Assessment of competence
James P. Waddell
CAN J SURG Oct 1999, 42 (5) 324;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire