Search

Throughout history, physicians have been involved in acts of resistance to systems of harm and injustice. However, resistance has seemed to have had little legitimate place in physician professionalism or in formal professional practice. As the challenges to physicians and the profession continue to mount, there is a pressing need to understand how it might be articulated and understood. To do that we need to consider past instances of physician resistance to injustice and harm. A scoping review was conducted to understand how often and in what contexts physicians have been engaged in resistance. A search of multiple bibliographic databases returned 2123 papers, which, after filtering for relevance and inclusion, left 60 articles for full-text review. Of these, 95% were from the United States, suggesting that issues of legitimacy are even more acute outside the U.S. Narrative findings were organized around four themes: professional responsibility to resist, legitimate resistance, resistance to perceived threats, and resistance as moral agency. When physicians have resisted, they have done so with a sense of moral agency albeit with different levels of altruism. They have often engaged in resistance when they felt their personal and professional interests are threatened, with particular emphasis on threats to physician autonomy. The study suggests that, within the U.S. at least, physician resistance is a matter for concern but, it has been approached with little or no guidance or grounding. Moreover, there is a longstanding tension between those who have argued that physicians have a professional responsibility to resist and those who have considered resistance to be extraneous and even harmful to their work as healers. At a time when physicians are facing an ever-growing number of practical, ethical, and moral challenges, professional acts of resistance are of critical concern within the profession., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The collection and analysis of data are central to medical education and medical education scholarship. Although the technical ability to collect more data, and medical education's dependence on data, have never been greater, it is getting harder for medical schools and educational scholars to collect and use data, particularly in terms of the regulations, security issues, and growing reluctance of learners and others to participate in data collection activities. These two countervailing trends present a growing threat to the viability of medical education scholarship. In response, there must either be a more conducive data environment for medical education scholarship or medical education must move to become less dependent on data.There is, therefore, a growing need for a system-wide correction: a shift in practice that makes data use more viable and productive while maintaining high professional standards. There are five core areas that can contribute to a system-wide correction: greater clarity over what can be used as data; greater clarity on what constitutes "good" data; changes to the ways in which data are collected; better strategic stewardship of existing data; and deliberate and strategic attention to "data readiness" in support of medical education and medical education scholarship. These solutions are primarily practical and conceptual changes in the face of what are mainly regulatory challenges. However, medical educators also need to engage with emerging areas of practice such as learning analytics, and they need to consider the shifting social contract for using data in medical education.

There has been a widespread shift to competency-based medical education (CBME) in the United States and Canada. Much of the CBME discourse has focused on the successful learner, with relatively little attention paid to what happens in CBME systems when learners stumble or fail. Emerging issues, such as the well-documented problem of "failure to fail" and concerns about litigious learners, have highlighted a need for well-defined and integrated frameworks to support and guide strategic approaches to the remediation of struggling medical learners.This Perspective sets out a conceptual review of current practices and an argument for a holistic approach to remediation in the context of their parent medical education systems. The authors propose parameters for integrating remediation into CBME and describe a model based on five zones of practice along with the rules of engagement associated with each zone. The zones are "normal" curriculum, corrective action, remediation, probation, and exclusion.The authors argue that, by linking and integrating theory and practice in remediation with CBME, a more integrated systems-level response to differing degrees of learner difficulty and failure can be developed. The proposed model demonstrates how educational practice in different zones is based on different rules, roles, responsibilities, and thresholds for moving between zones. A model such as this can help medical educators and medical education leaders take a more integrated approach to learners' failures as well as their successes by being more explicit about the rules of engagement that apply in different circumstances across the competency continuum.

Context: Conducting research in real life settings (effectiveness studies) can introduce many confounding factors. Efficacy studies seek to control for researcher bias and data quality rather than considering how the efficacy of an intervention is changed by the contexts in which it is used. Relatively little is known about the impact of context on educational interventions, in particular on multimedia learning., Methods: An effectiveness study to understand implementation variance of online educational modules in surgery clerkships was conducted in six US medical schools participating in an efficacy trial of different multimedia designs. Student and teacher experiences were captured through focus groups and one-to-one interviews with trial participants and their teachers. Audio-recordings of these sessions were transcribed and analysed using grounded theory techniques., Results: Differences were identified in student and teacher perceptions of how the educational intervention had been implemented and how its uptake had been influenced by context-dependent factors: (i) the intervention was implemented in different ways to suit different educational contexts and this influenced how students and teachers responded to it; (ii) the ways students and teachers interacted with, and behaved around, the intervention influenced its uptake; (iii) the way the intervention was perceived by students and teachers influenced its uptake; and (iv) the medium and design of the intervention had a directing influence on its uptake., Conclusions: It was observed that each institutional context formed a complex educational ecology. The intervention became interwoven with different educational ecologies so that it could no longer be considered a stable variable across the study. We suggest that researchers should conduct implementation-profiling studies in advance of any intervention-based research to account for the constructing nature of educational ecologies on their interventions and in doing so to more clearly differentiate between efficacy and effectiveness studies., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)