PubMed · 9481366
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M D Mattera. 1998. Challenges.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9481366/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: There is a growing consensus among medical educators that to promote the professional development of medical students, schools of medicine should provide explicit learning experiences in professionalism. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether and how schools of medicine were teaching professionalism in the 1998-1999 academic year. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 2-stage survey was sent to 125 US medical schools in the fall of 1998. A total of 116 (92.3%) responded to the first stage of the survey. The second survey led to a qualitative analysis of curriculum materials submitted by 41 schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence or absence of learning experiences (didactic or experiential) in undergraduate medical curriculum explicitly intended to promote professionalism in medical students, with curriculum evaluation based on 4 attributes commonly recognized as essential to professionalism: subordination of one's self-interests, adherence to high ethical and moral standards, response to societal needs, and demonstration of evincible core humanistic values. RESULTS: Of the 116 responding medical schools, 104 (89.7%) reported that they offer some formal instruction related to professionalism. Fewer schools have explicit methods for assessing professional behaviors (n = 64 [55.2%]) or conduct targeted faculty development programs (n = 39 [33.6%]). Schools use diverse strategies to promote professionalism, ranging from an isolated white-coat ceremony or other orientation experience (n = 71 [78.9%]) to an integrated sequence of courses over multiple years of the curriculum (n = 25 [27.8%]). Of the 41 schools that provided curriculum materials, 27 (65.9%) addressed subordinating self-interests; 31 (75.6%), adhering to high ethical and moral standards; 17 (41.5%), responding to societal needs; and 22 (53.7%), evincing core humanistic values. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the teaching of professionalism in undergraduate medical education varies widely. Although most medical schools in the United States now address this important topic in some manner, the strategies used to teach professionalism may not always be adequate.
Mindful practitioners attend in a nonjudgmental way to their own physical and mental processes during ordinary, everyday tasks. This critical self-reflection enables physicians to listen attentively to patients' distress, recognize their own errors, refine their technical skills, make evidence-based decisions, and clarify their values so that they can act with compassion, technical competence, presence, and insight. Mindfulness informs all types of professionally relevant knowledge, including propositional facts, personal experiences, processes, and know-how, each of which may be tacit or explicit. Explicit knowledge is readily taught, accessible to awareness, quantifiable and easily translated into evidence-based guidelines. Tacit knowledge is usually learned during observation and practice, includes prior experiences, theories-in-action, and deeply held values, and is usually applied more inductively. Mindful practitioners use a variety of means to enhance their ability to engage in moment-to-moment self-monitoring, bring to consciousness their tacit personal knowledge and deeply held values, use peripheral vision and subsidiary awareness to become aware of new information and perspectives, and adopt curiosity in both ordinary and novel situations. In contrast, mindlessness may account for some deviations from professionalism and errors in judgment and technique. Although mindfulness cannot be taught explicitly, it can be modeled by mentors and cultivated in learners. As a link between relationship-centered care and evidence-based medicine, mindfulness should be considered a characteristic of good clinical practice.
CONTEXT: Although physicians report spending a considerable amount of time in continuing medical education (CME) activities, studies have shown a sizable difference between real and ideal performance, suggesting a lack of effect of formal CME. OBJECTIVE: To review, collate, and interpret the effect of formal CME interventions on physician performance and health care outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Sources included searches of the complete Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, supplemented by searches of MEDLINE from 1993 to January 1999. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included in the analyses if they were randomized controlled trials of formal didactic and/or interactive CME interventions (conferences, courses, rounds, meetings, symposia, lectures, and other formats) in which at least 50% of the participants were practicing physicians. Fourteen of 64 studies identified met these criteria and were included in the analyses. Articles were reviewed independently by 3 of the authors. DATA EXTRACTION: Determinations were made about the nature of the CME intervention (didactic, interactive, or mixed), its occurrence as a 1-time or sequenced event, and other information about its educational content and format. Two of 3 reviewers independently applied all inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were then subjected to meta-analytic techniques. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 14 studies generated 17 interventions fitting our criteria. Nine generated positive changes in professional practice, and 3 of 4 interventions altered health care outcomes in 1 or more measures. In 7 studies, sufficient data were available for effect sizes to be calculated; overall, no significant effect of these educational methods was detected (standardized effect size, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.22 to 0.97). However, interactive and mixed educational sessions were associated with a significant effect on practice (standardized effect size, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.01-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show some evidence that interactive CME sessions that enhance participant activity and provide the opportunity to practice skills can effect change in professional practice and, on occasion, health care outcomes. Based on a small number of well-conducted trials, didactic sessions do not appear to be effective in changing physician performance.