Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24849320›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Measuring professionalism in medicine and nursing: results of a European survey.

Kiki M J M H Lombarts, Thomas Plochg, Caroline A Thompson, Onyebuchi A Arah, DUQuE Project Consortium

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kiki M J M H LombartsProfessional Performance Research Group, Center for Evidence-Based Education, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas PlochgDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline A ThompsonDepartment of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America; Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, United States of America.
Onyebuchi A ArahProfessional Performance Research Group, Center for Evidence-Based Education, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States of America; UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
DUQuE Project Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeveraging professionalism has been put forward as a strategy to drive improvement of patient care. We investigate professionalism as a factor influencing the uptake of quality improvement activities by physicians and nurses working in European hospitals.

objectiveTo (i) investigate the reliability and validity of data yielded by using the self-developed professionalism measurement tool for physicians and nurses, (ii) describe their levels of professionalism displayed, and (iii) quantify the extent to which professional attitudes would predict professional behaviors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We designed and deployed survey instruments amongst 5920 physicians and nurses working in European hospitals. This was conducted under the cross-sectional multilevel study "Deepening Our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe" (DUQuE). We used psychometric and generalized linear mixed modelling techniques to address the aforementioned objectives.

resultsIn all, 2067 (response rate 69.8%) physicians and 2805 nurses (94.8%) representing 74 hospitals in 7 European countries participated. The professionalism instrument revealed five subscales of professional attitude and one scale for professional behaviour with moderate to high internal consistency and reliability. Physicians and nurses display equally high professional attitude sum scores (11.8 and 11.9 respectively out of 16) but seem to have different perceptions towards separate professionalism aspects. Lastly, professionals displaying higher levels of professional attitudes were more involved in quality improvement actions (physicians: b = 0.019, P<0.0001; nurses: b = 0.016, P<0.0001) and more inclined to report colleagues' underperformance (physicians--odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.24; nurses - OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.23) or medical errors (physicians--OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.23; nurses - OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22-1.67). Involvement in QI actions was found to increase the odds of reporting incompetence or medical errors.

conclusionA tool that reliably and validly measures European physicians' and nurses' commitment to professionalism is now available. Collectively leveraging professionalism as a quality improvement strategy may be beneficial to patient care quality.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeResearch DesignAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelData CollectionEuropeFemaleHumansMaleNursesPhysiciansQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID24849320
PMCPMC4029578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.