Advertisement

Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 392–397 | Cite as

Assessing Professionalism and Ethics Knowledge and Skills: Preferences of Psychiatry Residents

  • Isis Marrero
  • Michael Bell
  • Laura B. Dunn
  • Laura Weiss Roberts
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Professionalism is one of the fundamental expectations and a core competency in residency education. Although programs use a variety of evaluative methods, little is known about residents’ views of and preferences regarding various methods of assessment.

Method

The authors surveyed residents at seven psychiatry residency programs in the United States regarding their attitudes on professionalism, ethics preparation, and evaluation in psychiatry residency training. This report describes their views on methods of assessing professionalism.

Results

Residents strongly agreed that clinical supervision is an appropriate assessment method. Moreover, they rated clinical supervision more highly than oral examinations, short-answer questions, essays, and standardized patient interactions. Residents also strongly favored direct faculty observation of residents’ interactions with actual patients and clinical team members.

Conclusion

This study suggests that both direct faculty supervision and other clinically-based assessments are methods accepted by psychiatry residents. Future research on the validity and effectiveness of these modes of assessment is needed.

Keywords

Academic Psychiatry Standardize Patient Psychiatry Resident Ethic Training Clinical Supervision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Medical Professionalism Project: Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician’s charter. Lancet 2002; 359:520–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burack JH, Irby DM, Carline JD, et al: Teaching compassion and respect: attending physicians’ responses to problematic behaviors. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14:49–55PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeRosa GP: Professionalism and virtues. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 449:28–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siegler M: Training doctors for professionalism: some lessons from teaching clinical medical ethics. Mt Sinai J Med 2002; 69:404–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shrank WH, Reed VA, Jernstedt GC: Fostering professionalism in medical education: a call for improved assessment and meaningful incentives. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19:887–892PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts LW: Sequential assessment of medical student competence with respect to professional attitudes, values, and ethics: Subcommittee on Professional Attitudes and Values, Student Progress Assessment. Acad Med 1997; 72:428–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roberts LW, Mines J, Voss C, et al: Assessing medical students’ competence in obtaining informed consent. Am J Surg 1999; 178:351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prislin MD, Lie D, Shapiro J, et al: Using standardized patients to assess medical students’ professionalism. Acad Med 2001; 76(Suppl):S90–S92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002; 287:226–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges B, Turnbull J, Cohen R, et al: Evaluating communication skills in the OSCE format: reliability and generaliz-ability. Med Educ 1996; 30:38–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, et al: OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med 1999; 74:1129–1134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swick S, Hall S, Beresin E: Assessing the ACGME Competencies in psychiatry training programs. Acad Psychiatry 2006; 30:330–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lapid MI, Moutier CY, Dunn LB, et al: Professionalism and ethics education on relationships and boundaries: psychiatry residents’ training preferences. Acad Psychiatry 2009; 33: 461–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts LW, Green Hammond KA, Geppert CM, et al: The positive role of professionalism and ethics training in medical education: a comparison of medical student and resident perspectives. Acad Psychiatry 2004; 28:170–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts LW, Warner TD, Hammond KA, et al: Becoming a good doctor: perceived need for ethics training focused on practical and professional development topics. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29:301–309PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts LW, Geppert CM, Warner TD, et al: Bioethics principles, informed consent, and ethical care for special populations: curricular needs expressed by men and women physicians-in-training. Psychosomatics 2005; 46:440–450PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ABIM Foundation: American Board of Internal Medicine; ACP-ASIM Foundation. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine; European Federation of Internal Medicine: Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136:243–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stern DT, Frohna AZ, Gruppen LD: The prediction of professional behaviour. Med Educ 2005; 39:75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shelp EE, Russell ML, Grose NP: Students’ attitudes to ethics in the medical school curriculum. J Med Ethics 1981; 7:70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perkins HS, Geppert CM, Hazuda HP: Challenges in teaching ethics in medical schools. Am J Med Sci 2000; 319:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diekema DS, Shugerman RP: An ethics curriculum for the pediatric residency program. confronting barriers to implementation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997; 151:609–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Branch WT Jr: Small-group teaching emphasizing reflection can positively influence medical students’ values. Acad Med 2001; 76:1171-1172; author reply: 1172–1173Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Misch DA: Evaluating physicians’ professionalism and humanism: the case for humanism “connoisseurs”. Acad Med 2002; 77:489–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larkin GL, Binder L, Houry D, et al: Defining and evaluating professionalism: a core competency for graduate emergency medicine education. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1249–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Swing SR: Assessing the ACGME General Competencies: general considerations and assessment methods. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1278–1288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shayne P, Heilpern K, Ander D; Emory University Department of Emergency Medicine Education Committee: Protected clinical teaching time and a bedside clinical evaluation instrument in an emergency medicine training program. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:1342–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldstein EA, Maestas RR, Fryer-Edwards K, et al: Professionalism in medical education: an institutional challenge. Acad Med 2006; 81:871–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen R, Singer PA, Rothman AI, et al: Assessing competency to address ethical issues in medicine. Acad Med 1991; 66:14–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Zanten M, Boulet JR, Norcini JJ, et al: Using a standardised patient assessment to measure professional attributes. Med Educ 2005; 39:20–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen JJ: Professionalism in medical education, an American perspective: from evidence to accountability. Med Educ 2006; 40:607–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isis Marrero
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael Bell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Laura B. Dunn
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Laura Weiss Roberts
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral NeurosciencesUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  2. 2.Dept. of PsychiatryUniversity of CaliforniaSan Francisco
  3. 3.Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations