4.5 Article

Addressing medical resident mistreatment: A resident-centred approach

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2279903

关键词

Mistreatment; resident; professionalism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mistreatment among medical learners negatively impacts their well-being, yet is often underreported. Residents face barriers such as confidentiality concerns and fear of retaliation when reporting mistreatment. Most residents prefer a remedial approach when dealing with perpetrators.
IntroductionMistreatment negatively impacts the wellbeing of medical learners and is related to worse patient outcomes and team functioning. Resident perspectives on improving mistreatment reporting structures and investigations have not been explored. We aimed to understand residents' views on safe reporting structures, investigations, and resolution processes.MethodWe conducted an exploratory sequential mixed method study beginning with a series of qualitative interviews to inform an anonymous online survey to all Dalhousie University residents (N = 645).ResultsWhen interviewed, residents (N = 10) discussed personal experiences with mistreatment, barriers to reporting, and how these processes could better serve them. Themes from the interviews were imbedded in an anonymous online survey to explore their prevalence among a larger group. Residents (N = 120; 19%) completed the online survey and revealed that mistreatment was very common yet underreported. Barriers to reporting included confidentiality concerns, perceptions that reporting would not change anything, and fear of retaliation. Desired outcomes for perpetrators depended on the perpetrator's position and incident severity, and most prefer a remedial approach.ConclusionResident mistreatment remains prevalent and current processes of dealing with reports may be inadequate. Residents have thoughtful insights for improving institutional policies and procedures and should be meaningfully engaged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据