ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Professionalism in Practice: A Novel Approach to Integrating Small Doses of Case-Based Professionalism Education Into Monthly Grand Rounds.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Professionalism is a critical construct across the health professions, though learners and faculty report feeling underprepared to navigate difficult situations; education in professionalism is challenged by the absence of a universal definition, time constraints due to overcrowded curricula, and the lack of consistent messaging to learners and faculty. Methods: Professionalism in Practice (PiP) was developed to provide small doses (∼5 minutes) of case-based professionalism education as part of an existing educational forum (Grand Rounds) to optimize attendance of both learners and faculty. Each vignette highlighted a common professionalism challenge and was aligned with an AAMC professional competency. Sessions were facilitated by learners and faculty in the department, and introduced a consistent framework (i.e., pause, my perspective, other's perspective, collaboration) for navigating difficult situations. Results: Post-session survey respondents (n=153 across 11 sessions) indicated that vignettes were relevant (93% [n = 142/153] agreed or strongly agreed), and that participants intended to change behavior (70% [n = 120/151] agreed or strongly agreed) and use the PiP framework in future practice (90% [n = 45/50] agreed or strongly agreed). Open-text comments revealed specific planned behavioral changes, such as pausing when frustrated or avoiding biased language in documentation. Conclusions: PiP addresses known challenges in professionalism education by adding case-based teaching to an existing educational forum attended by both learners and faculty, and by using a consistent definition of professionalism and framework for approaching common challenges. The initiative is adaptable to other institutions seeking to incorporate small doses of professionalism teaching as part of routine educational practices.
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.