IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i1p21582440231155435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Taiwan Emergency Physicians’ Core Competencies Based on ACGME Criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Kuo-Fang Hsu
  • Ping-Lung Huang
  • Tian-Shyug Lee
  • Bruce C. Y. Lee

Abstract

The development of physicians’ core competency is related to the quality of medical practice. Accordingly, knowing how to cultivate and evaluate core competency is an important issue for medical education and management. This study used the comprehensive core competency framework proposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and employed fuzzy AHP (FAHP) and DEMANTEL methods to analyze the weight and priority, as well as the cause-and-effect cluster. The FAHP analysis yielded the following rankings of factors’ importance: (1) patient care (C1; 27.83%), (2) medical knowledge (C2; 20.77%), (3) professionalism (C5; 17.93%), (4) interpersonal and communication skills (C4; 17.41%), (5) practice-based learning and improvement (C3; 15.52%), and (6) systems-based practice (C6; 8.233%). In terms of the DEMANTEL, the effect cluster included patient care (C1), professionalism (C5) and systems-based practice (C6), and the cause cluster included medical knowledge (C2), practice-based learning and improvement (C3), and interpersonal and communication skills (C4). The findings showed that patient care (C1) results from attitudes, patience, and the other five ACGME Core Competencies. Furthermore, emergency physicians’ development also requires humanities and ethics training and practice to ensure practice-based learning (C3). This study demonstrates the importance of various factors in developing emergency physicians’ core competencies, and the ï¬ ndings may provide a reference for future attempts at such competency development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuo-Fang Hsu & Ping-Lung Huang & Tian-Shyug Lee & Bruce C. Y. Lee, 2023. "Analysis of Taiwan Emergency Physicians’ Core Competencies Based on ACGME Criteria," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:21582440231155435
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231155435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231155435
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231155435?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhou-Jing Wang & Yuhong Wang & Kevin W. Li, 2016. "An Acceptable Consistency-Based Framework for Group Decision Making with Intuitionistic Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 181-202, January.
    2. Wang, Ying-Ming & Parkan, Celik, 2008. "Optimal aggregation of fuzzy preference relations with an application to broadband internet service selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1476-1486, June.
    3. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    4. Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Xinxin Wang & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 51-79, March.
    5. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    8. Wu, Desheng Dash, 2009. "Performance evaluation: An integrated method using data envelopment analysis and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 227-235, April.
    9. Zhibin Wu & Jie Xiao & Ivan Palomares, 2019. "Direct Iterative Procedures for Consensus Building with Additive Preference Relations Based on the Discrete Assessment Scale," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1167-1191, December.
    10. Wu-E Yang & Chao-Qun Ma & Zhi-Qiu Han & Wen-Jun Chen, 2016. "Checking and adjusting order-consistency of linguistic pairwise comparison matrices for getting transitive preference relations," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(3), pages 769-787, July.
    11. Jana Krejčí & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "FAHPSort: A Fuzzy Extension of the AHPSort Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1119-1145, July.
    12. Tien-Chin Wang & Ying-Ling Lin, 2009. "Using a Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Approach to Select Merged Strategies for Commercial Banks," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 519-536, November.
    13. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.
    14. Feifei Jin & Zhiwei Ni & Reza Langari & Huayou Chen, 2020. "Consistency Improvement-Driven Decision-Making Methods with Probabilistic Multiplicative Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 371-397, April.
    15. Fedrizzi, Michele & Giove, Silvio, 2007. "Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(1), pages 303-313, November.
    16. Sun, Kuo-Shun & Huang, Hsiao-Han, 2022. "The service quality of travel service centers in international airports in Taiwan," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    17. Aliheidari Bioki , Tahereh & Khademi Zare , Hasan & Hasanzadeh , Ali, 2013. "The New Method for Credit Customer Selecting by Integration of A2 and Data Envelopment Analysis (A2_DEA)," Journal of Money and Economy, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 8(2), pages 125-162, April.
    18. Zhen Zhang & Chonghui Guo, 2017. "Deriving priority weights from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations under group decision-making settings," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(12), pages 1582-1599, December.
    19. Raman Kumar Goyal & Sakshi Kaushal, 2018. "Deriving crisp and consistent priorities for fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria systems using non-linear constrained optimization," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 195-209, June.
    20. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:21582440231155435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.