Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34668213›Full record

ArticleMedical education2022

The shift from disbelieving underperformance to recognising failure: A tipping point model.

Andrea Gingerich, Stefanie S Sebok-Syer, Lorelei Lingard, Christopher J Watling

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Feedback with feelings: the human complexity of expressing judgements about performance.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The stigma of underperformance in assessment and remediation.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea GingerichDivision of Medical Sciences, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-3975
Stefanie S Sebok-SyerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3572-5971
Lorelei LingardSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher J WatlingSchulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Centre for Education Research & Innovation, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-795X
Western University · CAStanford University · USUniversity of Northern British Columbia · CA

Funding

Medical Council of Canada Research in Clinical Assessment grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextComing face to face with a trainee who needs to be failed is a stern test for many supervisors. In response, supervisors have been encouraged to report evidence of failure through numerous assessment redesigns. And yet, there are lingering signs that some remain reluctant to engage in assessment processes that could alter a trainee's progression in the programme. Failure is highly consequential for all involved and, although rare, requires explicit study. Recent work identified a phase of disbelief that preceded identification of underperformance. What remains unknown is how supervisors come to recognise that a trainee needs to be failed.

methodsFollowing constructivist grounded theory methodology, 42 physicians and surgeons in British Columbia, Canada shared their experiences supervising trainees who profoundly underperformed, required extensive remediation or were dismissed from the programme. We identified recurring themes using an iterative, constant comparative process.

resultsThe shift from disbelieving underperformance to recognising failure involves three patterns: accumulation of significant incidents, discovery of an egregious error after negligible deficits or illumination of an overlooked deficit when pointed out by someone else. Recognising failure was accompanied by anger, certainty and a sense of duty to prevent harm.

conclusionComing to the point of recognising that a trainee needs to fail is akin to the psychological process of a tipping point where people first realise that noise is signal and cross a threshold where the pattern is no longer an anomaly. The co-occurrence of anger raises the possibility for emotions to be a driver of, and not only a barrier to, recognising failure. This warrants caution because tipping points, and anger, can impede detection of improvement. Our findings point towards possibilities for supporting earlier identification of underperformance and overcoming reluctance to report failure along with countermeasures to compensate for difficulties in detecting improvement once failure has been verified.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceSurgeonsCanadaHumans

Identifiers

PMID34668213
OpenAlexW3207913900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.