Competency Review and Certification

Epic summary

The Competency Review and Certification epic is the faculty and coordinator workspace for reviewing learner evidence and making controlled competency and section decisions.

It separates three decisions:

Entry Verified
  The activity and evidence are accepted

Competency Certified
  The learner has demonstrated the required competency

Section Complete
  Every requirement for the course or posting section is satisfied

The same eligible faculty member may perform more than one decision where the curriculum permits it, but MedCES stores each decision separately.

Before you start

The following must already exist:

the learner’s programme logbook and applicable section;
curriculum competencies and logbook requirement definitions;
evidence, successful-performance, and certification rules;
eligible verifier and certifier designations;
active faculty designations, department and unit associations, and academic assignments;
submitted learner entries or authoritative system evidence;
a Course Coordinator for course-owned competencies;
a Clinical Posting Coordinator for posting-section oversight; and
applicable review, remediation, correction, and section-closure policy.

An entry may be submitted while another evidence source remains pending. Competency certification and section completion cannot proceed until their own required evidence is final.

Actors and access

Access source	Access in this epic
Assigned Faculty or actual clinical supervisor	Reviews entries for activities personally supervised or assigned within course, posting, unit, learner, and date scope
Course Coordinator	Monitors course evidence, certifies course-owned competencies, and completes or returns course logbook sections
Clinical Posting Coordinator	Monitors posting evidence, manages unresolved review work, and completes or returns posting sections
Eligible Unit Faculty	Reviews or certifies posting evidence when designation, unit association, assignment, and curriculum rule permit it
Unit Admin who is also eligible Faculty	Reassigns permitted unit work and acts academically only when the same faculty eligibility checks pass
Department Admin, normally with HOD appointment	Oversees department queues and performs configured department-level certification or exception decisions when also eligible Faculty
Phase Coordinator	Reviews phase-wide gaps and escalations without becoming the medical certifier
Academic Registrar	Reads completed sections and unresolved exceptions for downstream eligibility work
Institute Admin	Maintains access and designation assignments but cannot verify or certify through administration alone
Auditor role	Reads resolution logic, evidence snapshots, reviews, certifications, bulk actions, remediation, section decisions, and history

Authorisation rule

For every academic decision, MedCES evaluates:

Active institute relationship
AND Faculty role where an academic judgement is required
AND permitted designation
AND responsible department or unit relationship
AND current course, posting, activity, or learner assignment
AND decision date within the assignment interval
AND curriculum rule permits the action
AND no blocking maker-checker or conflict rule

Designation is necessary where configured but never sufficient on its own.

Workspace structure

The epic contains:

Logbook Review Queue
Entry Review
Course Competency Dashboard
Course Certification Queue
Clinical Posting Review and Designation Chain
Competency Certification
Remediation Management
Course and Posting Section Closure
Corrections, Reassignment, and Audit

Screen 1: Logbook Review Queue

Navigation:

My Work -> Logbook Review Queue
Course Workspace -> Logbook -> Pending Reviews
Clinical Posting Workspace -> Logbook and Competencies -> Pending Reviews

The central queue combines assigned work across courses and postings.

Each row shows:

learner;
entry and activity type;
curriculum requirement and competencies;
course, posting, department, and unit context;
activity date and attempt number;
actual or assigned supervisor;
reason this reviewer is eligible;
submitted and due dates;
privacy or evidence warning; and
current state.

Filters include course, posting, unit, learner group, competency, first attempt, repeat, remediation, resubmitted, overdue, and reassigned.

Screen 2: Entry Review

The reviewer sees the entry alongside its requirement and retained context.

Review information

Area	What is shown
Curriculum requirement	Activity, related competencies, required level, successful count, evidence, and source
Operational context	Course delivery or posting occurrence, department, unit, date, actual supervisor, and learner assignment
Learner submission	Structured response, reflection, role in activity, and permitted attachments
Previous attempts	Earlier decisions, feedback, repeat, and remediation history
Current progress	Accepted evidence, remaining count, and current competency state
Reviewer authority	Role, designation, assignment, scope, and rule that permits the action

Decisions

Verify Successful — the activity and evidence meet the requirement;
Verify Participation Only — valid participation but not a successful performance where the rule supports it;
Return for Correction — the entry needs a permitted factual or documentary correction;
Repeat Required — the learner must undertake another attempt;
Remediation Required — a named corrective plan is required before another attempt;
Invalid Context — the claimed course, posting, date, unit, or learner relationship is not valid; or
Report Privacy Issue — restricts unsafe evidence and starts the institute response.

The reviewer records structured rating where required, feedback, decision reason, and whether the decision contributes successful evidence.

Screen 3: Course Competency Dashboard

The Course Coordinator views competency progress for the assigned cohort course offering.

The dashboard shows:

course-owned and contributing competencies;
learners at Not Started, Exposed, Evidence Accumulating, Assessed, Eligible for Certification, Certified, or Remediation Required;
conducted teaching mapped to each competency;
finalised learner exposure;
practical or logbook evidence;
future assessment evidence where applicable;
missing or invalid evidence;
certification-ready learners; and
course-section completion readiness.

For an integrated competency, the responsible course owns final certification. Contributing courses supply evidence without creating competing certification records.

Screen 4: Course Certification Queue

When a course-owned competency satisfies its evidence rule, MedCES creates a task for the current Course Coordinator.

Example:

CBC Interpretation — Pathology

Eligible for certification: 143 learners
Missing practical evidence:    7 learners
Remediation required:          2 learners
Unable to evaluate:            1 learner

The coordinator can open one learner or select a group of learners who satisfy the same rule.

Bulk certification requires:

the same curriculum version and competency;
identical satisfied rule and evidence state;
no unresolved return, remediation, correction, or missing source;
an explicit declaration by the coordinator; and
one individual certification record per learner.

The coordinator cannot bulk-certify learners merely because they attended the associated lectures.

Screen 5: Clinical Posting Review and Designation Chain

Posting entries begin with the actual clinical context.

Actual supervisor
  -> eligible assigned faculty in the same unit
      -> eligible faculty of the required designation in the unit
          -> eligible faculty of the required designation in the department
              -> configured department authority for reassignment or exception

The rule can use different designation sets for entry verification and final certification.

Example:

Entry verification
Context: Actual supervisor or assigned unit faculty
Eligible designations: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor

Final certification
Context: Assigned unit, then responsible department
Eligible designations: Associate Professor, Professor

At each step, the user must also be Faculty, belong to the correct department or unit, hold an effective assignment, and fall within the learner and date scope.

The Clinical Posting Coordinator can monitor or reassign overdue work but cannot perform the medical decision unless independently eligible.

Screen 6: Competency Certification

The certification screen presents the complete retained evidence snapshot.

Field	Meaning
Learner and curriculum	Exact learner, enrolment, curriculum version, phase, and competency
Responsible context	Course or clinical-posting owner
Required proficiency	Knows, Knows How, Shows How, Performs, or configured level
Completion method	Exposure, assessment, observation, repeated performance, portfolio, or combined
Required evidence	Each named condition and current result
Successful performances	Required, verified, invalidated, and pending counts
Remediation	Open and completed corrective work
Missing sources	Attendance, delivery, assessment, review, or other source preventing evaluation
Certifier authority	Coordinator assignment or designation-based faculty eligibility

The permitted decisions are:

Certify;
Return for Additional Evidence;
Remediation Required;
Unable to Evaluate; or
Reject Invalid Evidence through its controlled source process.

A certification records the evidence snapshot and rule version used. Later invalidation or correction creates a review or successor decision; it does not rewrite the certificate silently.

Automatic exposure from course delivery

MedCES may automatically add Teaching Exposure when all of the following are true:

the course session was Conducted;
faculty confirmed that the competency was actually covered;
attendance was Finalised;
the learner was applicable to the session; and
the final attendance status qualifies under the evidence rule.

The resulting evidence says:

Competency state: Exposed
Source: Conducted session and finalised attendance

It does not say:

Competency state: Certified

A practical or clinical activity may automatically create a review task from delivery context, but successful performance still requires faculty verification.

Screen 7: Remediation Management

When a reviewer or certifier chooses Remediation Required, the user defines:

Field	Required	Meaning
Deficiency	Yes	What evidence or performance did not meet the required standard
Required remediation	Yes	Supervised practice, teaching, reflection, repeat activity, or another supported action
Responsible course, department, or unit	Yes	Academic owner of the corrective work
Assigned faculty	Conditional	Eligible person responsible for review where known
Due date or review point	Yes	When the learner’s progress will be reassessed
Evidence required	Yes	What the learner must submit or demonstrate
Attempt relationship	Yes	Original entry or competency decision causing remediation

Completion of remediation creates evidence but does not automatically certify the competency unless the curriculum rule explicitly defines an objective automatic outcome.

Screen 8: Course and Posting Section Closure

Course section

Navigation:

Course Workspace -> Logbook -> Section Completion

The Course Coordinator sees mandatory entries, verified evidence, course-owned certifications, contributing evidence, assessment dependencies, remediation, and unresolved corrections.

Posting section

Navigation:

Clinical Posting Workspace -> Completion -> Logbook and Competency Readiness

The Clinical Posting Coordinator sees posting duration, actual delivery, clinical attendance, required cases and procedures, competency certification, remediation, replacement work, and missing unit reviews.

Section decisions

Complete;
Return for Completion;
Complete with Approved Exception; or
Unable to Evaluate.

The decision records the exact source states and applicable rule. Section completion does not itself grant examination eligibility or phase progression.

Screen 9: Corrections, Reassignment, and Audit

The workspace supports:

reassignment when a reviewer is unavailable or no longer eligible;
correction of a faculty review through a successor decision;
investigation of invalid or duplicate evidence;
withdrawal or replacement of unsafe evidence;
review of bulk certification membership;
recalculation after source attendance, delivery, or assessment correction; and
complete actor, authority, designation, assignment, evidence, and decision history.

An administrator may reassign a task but cannot use reassignment to perform the academic judgement.

Use case 1: Resolve an eligible entry reviewer

As the system
I want to assign a submitted entry to the correct faculty member
So that review follows the actual academic context and curriculum rule.

Acceptance criteria

The actual supervisor or assigned course faculty is considered first where configured.
Faculty role, designation, department or unit, assignment, date, and learner scope are checked.
The task explains why the selected reviewer is eligible.
An ineligible or ended assignment cannot receive a new task.
Fallback routing retains every attempted assignment and reason.

Use case 2: Review a learner entry

As an eligible Faculty member
I want to review the activity and evidence in context
So that valid work contributes to the learner’s competency record.

Acceptance criteria

The reviewer sees the applicable requirement, context, earlier attempts, and remaining evidence.
The learner submission cannot be edited by the reviewer.
Each decision requires the fields defined by the curriculum rule.
Verified successful evidence contributes exactly once.
Repeat or remediation creates a new linked action without erasing the reviewed attempt.

Use case 3: Record teaching exposure automatically

As the system
I want to add exposure from actual course delivery and attendance
So that learners and coordinators see teaching received without mistaking it for competence.

Acceptance criteria

The session is Conducted and the competency is confirmed as covered.
Attendance is Finalised and applicable to the learner.
Reprocessing the source does not create duplicate evidence.
A source correction updates or invalidates the evidence visibly.
The learner moves to Exposed, not Certified.

Use case 4: Certify a course-owned competency

As a Course Coordinator
I want to certify learners whose course evidence satisfies the rule
So that the responsible course owns one controlled competency decision.

Acceptance criteria

The user is the effective Course Coordinator for the offering and dates.
Every required evidence condition is shown and satisfied.
Contributing-course evidence is visible without changing ownership.
Bulk action includes only identically eligible learners.
Every learner receives an individual certification and audit record.
Lecture attendance alone cannot satisfy a certification rule unless the curriculum defines only exposure completion, which is not labelled certification.

Use case 5: Certify a posting-linked competency

As an eligible Faculty member in the assigned unit or department
I want to certify a clinical competency after reviewing its successful evidence
So that certification follows the actual posting and designation authority.

Acceptance criteria

The user’s designation appears in the permitted certification designation set.
Faculty role, department or unit, posting assignment, date, and learner scope are valid.
Required successful performances are verified and non-duplicative.
Unit-level eligible faculty are used before department fallback where configured.
The retained certification explains the authority and evidence used.

Use case 6: Manage competency remediation

As an eligible Faculty member or Course Coordinator
I want to define and review corrective work
So that a learner can address a specific documented deficiency.

Acceptance criteria

Remediation identifies its source deficiency and responsible academic context.
Required work, evidence, reviewer, and review date are explicit.
New attempts remain linked to the earlier decision.
Completion evidence is reviewed under the applicable rule.
An earlier unsuccessful attempt remains in history.

Use case 7: Complete a course logbook section

As a Course Coordinator
I want to review the complete course section
So that its final logbook and competency facts are available downstream.

Acceptance criteria

Mandatory requirements, entries, evidence, certifications, remediation, and dependencies are checked.
Missing or unfinalised evidence returns Unable to Evaluate.
Approved exceptions require authority, reason, source, and impact.
Completion records the exact snapshot reviewed.
The decision does not grant examination eligibility by itself.

Use case 8: Complete a clinical-posting section

As a Clinical Posting Coordinator
I want to close a posting only when its delivery and learner evidence are ready
So that posting completion reflects actual work.

Acceptance criteria

Required duration, delivered occurrences, attendance, cases, procedures, skills, certifications, remediation, and replacement work are checked separately.
Every missing item identifies its owning source.
The coordinator cannot manufacture a faculty verification or certification.
Re-evaluation creates a new result and preserves the earlier state.
Completion can be consumed by later progression without copying its evidence.

Business rules

Entry verification, competency certification, and section completion are different decisions.
Designation is an eligibility condition and never the only access check.
Course Coordinators certify competencies owned by their course when the curriculum rule requires certification.
Posting evidence begins with the actual supervisor and follows the configured unit and department designation chain.
Teaching attendance creates exposure, not competence.
One competency may require evidence from several entries, courses, phases, or source modules.
The responsible curriculum owner produces one final competency certification.
Bulk certification creates one auditable decision per learner.
Unsuccessful evidence and remediation remain in history.
Missing final evidence produces Unable to Evaluate, not an assumed failure or success.

Exception paths

Actual supervisor is unavailable: route to another eligible assigned faculty member using the retained fallback chain.
No eligible faculty exists: show an authorisation gap to the department; do not route to an administrator as academic reviewer.
Designation expires during review: preserve Draft work but require a currently eligible actor for the final decision.
Duplicate evidence is detected: exclude it from counts, retain the reason, and recalculate eligibility.
Source attendance or delivery is corrected: mark dependent exposure and certification readiness stale and re-evaluate.
Course Coordinator changes: new tasks route to the effective coordinator; earlier decisions retain their original actor.
Certification is disputed: create a controlled review or appeal record without overwriting the certification.
Privacy issue is found: restrict evidence access and follow institute privacy policy before academic review continues.

Conceptual schema

Record	Important fields
`competency.logbook_review_task`	entry, authorisation rule, assigned user, faculty assignment, eligibility reason, due date, state
`competency.logbook_review_decision`	task, decision, rating, successful-evidence effect, feedback, actor, designation, assignment, time
`competency.learner_competency`	learner, curriculum competency, current state, evidence and certification summary, calculated at
`competency.competency_evidence`	learner competency, evidence type, source type and ID, accepted or invalidated state, effective date
`competency.competency_certification_task`	learner competency, authority type, course or posting scope, assigned actor or candidate chain, state
`competency.competency_certification`	learner competency, decision, proficiency, evidence snapshot, rule version, certifier authority, time
`competency.remediation_requirement`	learner, source deficiency, responsible context, required work, evidence, reviewer, due and completion state
`competency.logbook_section_review`	section, source snapshot, decision, exception, actor, authority, time
`competency.review_reassignment`	task, from actor, to actor, reason, authorising actor, time
`competency.competency_event`	affected record, action, previous and new state, actor, authority, reason, time

Process-layer responsibilities

The process layer must:

resolve eligible reviewers from actual course and posting context;
evaluate role, designation, department, unit, academic assignment, learner scope, dates, and curriculum rule together;
explain why a user may or may not make each decision;
keep entry review, competency certification, and section completion separate;
preserve learner submissions while recording faculty decisions independently;
create normalised, non-duplicate evidence from accepted sources;
add course exposure only from conducted, covered, and finalised source activity;
calculate successful-performance counts and certification readiness;
route course competency certification to the effective Course Coordinator;
route posting certification through the configured unit and department designation chain;
enforce maker-checker and same-actor rules where configured;
support safe bulk certification with individual records;
create and track remediation without erasing earlier attempts;
calculate explainable course and posting section readiness;
mark results stale after relevant source corrections;
prevent administrative reassignment from granting academic authority; and
preserve full decision and authorisation history.

Out of scope

This epic does not:

define or edit curriculum competencies and certification rules;
create student logbook entries;
alter course delivery, posting, attendance, or assessment source facts;
make patient-care decisions or store hospital records;
calculate examination results;
grant examination eligibility; or
progress or hold back a learner.

Completion outcome

Every learner entry reaches the correct faculty reviewer, course and posting competencies are certified through their agreed authority paths, remediation remains visible, and course or posting sections close only from complete, explainable evidence.