Development of Competency Profile for Doctoral Candidates in Diagnostic Healthcare Fields: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: Competency frameworks play a crucial role in guiding the education and training of doctoral candidates in diagnostic healthcare Fields. This scoping review aims to systematically map the existing literature on the development of competency frameworks and competency profiles tailored for doctoral-level education in diagnostic healthcare professions, particularly Pathology. Methodology: The Arksey and O’Malley framework was applied to undertake this scoping review. A comprehensive search strategy was developed using a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to competency frameworks, clinical competence, professional competence, diagnostic healthcare profession, doctoral education, and synonyms. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched, along with targeted searches of grey literature sources like Google scholar. We screened studies for inclusion by title and abstract, and we included studies of any type that described the development of a competency profile/framework for doctoral candidates in a Diagnostic healthcare profession. Data compilation was qualitative. Results: The total records identified from the databases were n=204,351. Out of these the records removed before screening were Duplicate records removed (n =137,300). Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n =51030), Records removed for other reasons (n =12,521). Records screened were n=3500. Based on the exclusion criteria n=3253 records were excluded. Reports which could not be retrieved were n=122. Finally, n=135 reports were assessing for eligibility and out of these n=71 were excluded from Allied Health Sciences and n=64 were excluded because they focused primarily on competencies of Nursing students. Finally, n=21 studies were included in the scoping review and the findings were charted. Conclusion: We observed significant variation within the conduct and reporting of the competency framework development process. While some variation can be expected given the differences across and within medical professions, our results suggest there is some difficulty in determining whether methods were fit-for-purpose, and therefore in making determinations regarding the appropriateness of the development process. This uncertainty may unwillingly create and legitimize uncertain or artificial outcomes. There is a need for improved guidance in the process for developing and reporting competency frameworks.