ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2019
The institutional impact after enacting student solutions to decrease barriers in reporting unprofessional behaviors.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. A two-year study was conducted to evaluate medical student perceptions on professionalism, including barriers to reporting misconduct and solutions to address barriers. Institutional changes occurred based on Year One findings: 1) a streamlined system (EthicsPoint®) was introduced to simplify the process of reporting and allow anonymous reports; 2) curriculum was revamped to include improved didactics on professionalism, instructions on using the EthicsPoint® system, and clerkship orientations that provided clear expectations of behavior by students, house-staff, and faculty; 3) semi-annually, students were asked to document witnessed misconduct, reassured that reports would be confidential, and reassured about protection from reprisal. In Year Two, we assessed changes in the culture of professionalism after institutional changes. Comparing Year Two to Year One, students demonstrated an increase in perceived confidence in ability to identify unprofessional behavior (p<0.01) and increased trust in protection from reprisal (p<0.01). In Year Two, students were more likely to report misconduct related to derogatory remarks about patients (p<0.01) and informed consent (p<0.01). By enhancing clarity about expectations for professional behavior, encouraging transparency through a streamlined and anonymous reporting process, and fostering trust that allows students to feel protected from reprisal, the culture of professionalism at an institution can be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.