Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42475140›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Beyond Words: Addressing Ethical Issues in Clinical Documentation through Medical Education.

Danielle Wilfand, Lindsey Grubbs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Danielle Wilfand
Lindsey Grubbs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stigmatizing language in medical documentation is a barrier to achieving patient-centered care and health justice: it can contribute to patient distrust and alienation, and it appears more frequently in the charts of patients from marginalized groups, especially Black patients, impacting the future care they receive. One powerful avenue to address this issue is within undergraduate medical education; however, while some have investigated educational interventions to improve accuracy and technical proficiency in charting, there is significantly less focus on instruction surrounding the ethical and social consequences of documentation. We contend that incorporating activities designed to elicit critical thinking about language, power, and structural injustice can encourage students to reflect upon and improve their documentation practices and can arm them with a critical lens through which to view the documentation generated by their peers and preceptors as they progress through training and establish the habits that will persist throughout their careers.

Indexed as

DocumentationEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansclinical ethicsempathymedical documentationmedical educationstigmastructural competency

Identifiers

PMID42475140
PMCPMC13384078

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.