4.5 Article

Before the white coat: perceptions of professional lapses in the pre-clerkship

Journal

MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 12-19

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02028.x

Keywords

education, medical, undergraduate, standards; professional competence, standards; clinical clerkships, standards; ethics, medical; students, medical, ethics; data collection; Toronto, epidemiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND It has been shown that the professional development of clinical clerks is influenced by their experiences of unprofessional behaviour, but the perceptions of pre-clerkship students have received relatively little attention. Our purpose was to develop a greater contextual understanding of the situations in which pre-clerkship students encounter professional challenges, and to investigate what pre-clerkship students consider to be professional lapses in these situations. METHODS We conducted 4 focus groups (n = 22 Students); transcripts were analysed by 3 researchers using grounded theory. RESULTS Pre-clerkship students reported lapses in the areas of communicative violation, role resistance, objectification, accountability and harm, validating our previous clerkship-based framework. However, they also reported numerous lapses committed by fellow students and many instances of lack of accountability to students, which were Hot reported by clerks. Many of their reports involved non-health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS The willingness of pre-clerkship students to report on fellow students was associated with a tendency to blame their colleagues, at the expense of a more reflective analysis, and their views on professionalism appeared to be generic father than medicine-specific. We should reinforce students' appreciation of these generic values and add on medicine-specific values as the students progress, in order to better cultivate professionalism without entitlement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available