To the point: reviews in medical education-taking control of the hidden curriculum

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.97). 10/2010; 203(4):316.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.035
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article, the ninth in the "To the Point" series that is prepared by the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Undergraduate Medical Education Committee, discusses the role of the "hidden curriculum" in shaping the professional identity of doctors in training. The characteristics that distinguish the formal curriculum and hidden curriculum are defined. Specific examples of hidden curricula in clinical environments and the positive and negative impacts that may result are highlighted. Techniques to evaluate clinical training environments and to identify the hidden curriculum are provided and are followed by methods to promote its positive messages and lessen its negative ones.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Defensive medicine is a medical practice in which health care providers' primary intent is to avoid criticism and lawsuits, rather than providing for patients' medical needs. The purpose of this study was to characterize medical students' exposure to defensive medicine during medical school rotations. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of medical students at the beginning of their third year. We gave students Likert scale questionnaires, and their responses were tabulated as a percent with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Of the 124 eligible third-year students, 102 (82%) responded. Most stated they rarely worried about being sued (85.3% [95% CI=77.1% to 90.9%]). A majority felt that faculty were concerned about malpractice (55.9% [95% CI=46.2% to 65.1%]), and a smaller percentage stated that faculty taught defensive medicine (32.4% [95% CI=24.1% to 41.9%]). Many students believed their satisfaction would be decreased by MC and lawsuits (51.0% [95% CI=41.4% to 60.5%]). Some believed their choice of medical specialty would be influenced by MC (21.6% [95% CI=14.7% to 30.5%]), and a modest number felt their enjoyment of learning medicine was lessened by MC (23.5% [95% CI=16.4% to 32.6%]). Finally, a minority of students worried about practicing and learning procedures because of MC (16.7% [95% CI=10.7% to 25.1%]). Conclusion: Although third-year medical students have little concern about being sued, they are exposed to malpractice concerns and taught considerable defensive medicine from faculty. Most students believe that fear of lawsuits will decrease their future enjoyment of medicine. However, less than a quarter of students felt their specialty choice would be influenced by malpractice worries and that malpractice concerns lessened their enjoyment of learning medicine. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(3):293–298.]
    The western journal of emergency medicine 05/2014; 15(3):293-8. DOI:10.5811/westjem.2013.8.19045
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Unprofessional behavior has well documented negative effects both on the clinical care environment and on the learning environment. If unprofessional behavior varies by department or specialty, this has implications both for faculty development and for undergraduate and graduate level training. Aims: We sought to learn which unprofessional behaviors were endemic in our school, and which were unique to particular departments. Methods: Students graduating from medical school between 2007 and 2012 were asked to complete a questionnaire naming the most professional and least professional faculty members they encountered in during school. For the least professional faculty members, they were also asked to provide information about the unprofessional behavior. Results: Students noted several types of unprofessional behavior regardless of the department faculty were in; however, there were some behaviors only noted in individual departments. The unprofessional behavior profiles for Surgery and Obstetrics/Gynecology were markedly similar, and were substantially different from all other specialties. Conclusion: Undergraduate, graduate, and faculty education focused on unprofessional behavior that may occur in various learning environments may provide a feasible, practical, and an effective approach to creating a culture of professional behavior throughout the organization.
    Medical Teacher 05/2014; 36(7). DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2014.899690 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To define the concept of "organizational philosophy" through identification of elements within undergraduate pharmacy curricula in the United Kingdom that contribute to students' learning of professionalism. Methods. A qualitative study using curriculum mapping was conducted to identify "intended," "taught," and "received" curriculum in 3 schools of pharmacy. The study involved review of course materials, interviews with teaching staff members, focus groups with final year students, and observation of classes. Results. "Organizational philosophy" (totality of all contributors) played a vital part in students' professionalism learning. Key contributions were not restricted to the "taught" curriculum but extended to the wider academic environment. Setting of high standards appeared important; role models had particular significance. Importance of professionalism learning being grounded and longitudinal throughout the curriculum was highlighted. An "integrated" organizational philosophy appeared to be achieved where maximum overlap occurred between "intended," "taught," and "received" curricula. Conclusions. Professionalism learning goes beyond the "taught" curriculum in pharmacy schools. The concept of "organizational philosophy" acknowledges the importance of integration between "intended," "taught," and "received" curriculum in the context of overall organization.
    American journal of pharmaceutical education 12/2013; 77(10):214. DOI:10.5688/ajpe7710214 · 1.19 Impact Factor