Skip to main content
Log in

Patients Do not Know the Level of Training of Their Doctors Because Doctors Do not Tell Them

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Setting

Although patients should know the level of training of the physician providing their care in teaching hospitals, many do not.

Objective

The objective of this study is to determine whether the manner by which physicians introduce themselves to patients is associated with patients’ misperception of the level of training of their physician.

Patients/Participants

This was an observational study of 100 patient–physician interactions in a teaching emergency department.

Measurements and Main Results

Residents introduced themselves as a doctor 82% of the time but identified themselves as a resident only 7% of the time. While attending physicians introduced themselves as a “doctor” 64% of the time, only 6% identified themselves as the supervising physician. Patients felt it was very important to know their physicians’ level of training, but most did not.

Conclusions

Physicians in our sample were rarely specific about their level of training and role in patient care when introducing themselves to patients. This lack of communication may contribute to patients’ lack of knowledge regarding who is caring for them in a teaching hospital.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. Medical student’s involvement in patient care. J Clin Ethics. 2001;12:111–5.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The American College of Physicians. Ethics manual. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:576–94.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Santen SA, Hemphill, Prough EE, Perlowski AA. Do patients understand their physicians’ level of training? A survey of emergency department patients. Acad Med. 2004;79:144–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hemphill RR, Santen SA, Rountree CB, Szmit AR. Patients’ understanding of the roles of interns, residents, and attending physicians in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:339–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Joint Commission of Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. [monograph on line]. Oakbrook Terrace: Joint Commission Resource Inc.; 2002 [updated 2002 May 2, cited 2002 May 29]. Sections RI.1.2, MS 2.5 and 6.9.

  6. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician–patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:555–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Mettler MA, et al.. A strategy for improving patient satisfaction by the intensive training of residents in psychosocial medicine: a controlled, randomized study. Acad Med. 1995;70:729–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior and medical encounters. Med Care. 1988;26:657–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wendler DS, Shah S. How can medical training and informed consent be reconciled with volume outcome data. J Clin Ethics. 2006;17:149–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lo B. Resolving Ethical Dilemmas, A Guide for Clinicians. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000:19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med. 1994;69:861–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beatty ME, Lewis J. When students introduce themselves as doctors to patients. Acad Med. 1995;70:175–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Santen SA, Hemphill RR, Spanier CM, Fletcher N. “Sorry, it’s my first time!” Will patients consent to medical students learning procedures. Med Educ. 2005;39:365–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams CT, Fost N. Ethical considerations surrounding first time procedures: a study and analysis of patient attitudes toward spinal taps by students. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1992;2:217–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Santen SA, Hemphill RR, McDonald MF, Jo CO. Patient willingness to allow residents to learn to practice medical procedures. Acad Med. 2004;79:139–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There was no funding of this research. This paper was presented at ACEP Research Forum 2000, and the Southern Medical Association Annual Meeting 2000.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally A. Santen MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santen, S.A., Rotter, T.S. & Hemphill, R.R. Patients Do not Know the Level of Training of Their Doctors Because Doctors Do not Tell Them. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 607–610 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0472-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0472-1

KEY WORDS

Navigation