Institutional leadership and faculty response: fostering professionalism at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.
Academic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.47). 12/2007; 82(11):1049-56. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31815763d2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fostering professionalism requires institutional leadership and faculty buy-in. At the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, policies and educational programs were developed to enhance professionalism in three areas: conduct of clinical trials, relations with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the clinical and teaching environment. Responsible conduct of clinical trials has been addressed with mandatory online education and certification for clinical investigators, but some still fail to recognize conflicts of interest. Activity of pharmaceutical representatives has been strictly regulated, meals and gifts from pharmaceutical companies prohibited, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in the formulary process and in continuing medical education curtailed. Some faculty members have resented such restrictions, particularly in regard to their opportunity to give paid lectures. Professionalism in the clinical and teaching environment has been addressed with interdisciplinary rounding, experiential learning for medical students and residents in small groups, increased recognition of role models of professionalism, and active management of disruptive physicians. Leadership has been exerted through policy development, open communications, and moral suasion and example. Faculty members have expressed both their support and their reservations. Development of communication strategies continues, including town hall meetings, small groups and critical incident narratives, and individual feedback. The understanding and endorsement of faculty, staff, and trainees are an essential element of the professionalism effort.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Professionalism is an indispensable element in the compact between the medical profession and society that is based on trust and putting the needs of patients above all other considerations. The resurgence of interest in professionalism dates back to the 1980s when health maintenance organizations were formed and proprietary influences in health care increased. Since then, a rich and comprehensive literature has emerged in defining professionalism, including desirable individual attributes and behaviors and how they may be taught, promoted, and assessed. More recently, scholarship has shifted from individual to organizational professionalism. This literature addresses the role that health care organizations can play to establish environments that are conducive to the consistent expression of professionalism by individuals and health care teams. We reviewed interdisciplinary empirical studies from health care effectiveness and outcomes, organizational sciences, positive psychology, and social psychology, finding evidence that organizational and individual professionalism is associated with a wide range of benefits to patients and the organization. We identify actionable organizational strategies and approaches that, if adopted, can foster and promote combined organizational and individual professionalism. In doing so, trust in the medical profession and its institutions can be enhanced, which in turn will reconfirm a commitment to the social compact.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 05/2014; 89(5):644-652. DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.011 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unprofessional behavior by faculty can result in poor patient care, poor role modeling, and mistreatment of trainees. To improve faculty or institutional behavior, unprofessional faculty must be given direct feedback. The authors sought to determine whether annually surveying medical students for their nominations of most and least professional faculty, coupled with direct feedback to unprofessional faculty from the dean, improved faculty's professional behavior.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 07/2014; 89(7):1032-1037. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000275 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medical student mistreatment has been recognized for decades and is known to adversely impact students personally and professionally. Similarly, burnout has been shown to negatively impact students. This study assesses the prevalence of student mistreatment across multiple medical schools and characterizes the association between mistreatment and burnout. In 2011, the authors surveyed a nationally representative sample of third-year medical students. Students reported the frequency of experiencing mistreatment by attending faculty and residents since the beginning of their clinical rotations. Burnout was measured using a validated two-item version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Of 960 potential respondents from 24 different medical schools, 605 (63%) completed the survey, but 41 were excluded because they were not currently in their third year of medical school. Of the eligible students, the majority reported experiencing at least one incident of mistreatment by faculty (64% [361/562]) and by residents (76% [426/562]). A minority of students reported experiencing recurrent mistreatment, defined as occurring "several" or "numerous" times: 10% [59/562] by faculty and 13% [71/562] by residents. Recurrent mistreatment (compared with no or infrequent mistreatment) was associated with high burnout: 57% versus 33% (P < .01) for recurrent mistreatment by faculty and 49% versus 32% (P < .01) for recurrent mistreatment by residents. Medical student mistreatment remains prevalent. Recurrent mistreatment by faculty and residents is associated with medical student burnout. Although further investigation is needed to assess causality, these data provide impetus for medical schools to address student mistreatment to mitigate its adverse consequences.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 03/2014; 89(5). DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000204 · 3.47 Impact Factor