Dataset Information

Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees.

ABSTRACT: The function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.To ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations used in member decision making, and student characteristics most influential in that decision making.An electronic survey was distributed to voting members of promotions committees at 143 accredited allopathic medical schools in the USA. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data were analysed by gender, role, institution type and class size.Respondents included 241 voting members of promotions committees at 55 medical schools. Respondents endorsed various promotions committee roles, including acting in the best interest of learners' future patients and graduating highly qualified learners. Implementing policy was assigned lower importance. The overall pattern of responses did not indicate a predominant orientation toward an ethic of justice or care. Respondents indicated that committees have discretion to take individual student characteristics into consideration during deliberations, and that they do so in practice. Among the student characteristics with the greatest influence on decision making, professionalism and academic performance were paramount. Eighty-five per cent of participants indicated that they received no training.Promotions committee members do not regard orientations of justice and care as being mutually exclusive and endorse an array of statements regarding the committee's purpose that may conflict with one another. The considerable variance in the influence of student characteristics and the general absence of committee member training indicate a need for clear delineation of the medical profession's priorities in terms of justice and care, and of the specific student characteristics that should factor into deliberations.

SUBMITTER: Green EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5431287 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees.

Green Emily P EP Gruppuso Philip A PA

Medical education 20170601 6

<h4>Context</h4>The function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.<h4>Objectives</h4>To ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations ...[more]

PMID: 28488300

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFaculty and students debate the fairness and accuracy of medical student clerkship grades. Group decision-making is a potential strategy to improve grading.ObjectiveTo explore how one school's grading committee members integrate assessment data to inform grade decisions and to identify the committees' benefits and challenges.DesignThis qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with grading committee chairs and members conducted between November 2017 and March 2018.ParticipantsParticipants included the eight core clerkship directors, who chaired their grading committees. We randomly selected other committee members to invite, for a maximum of three interviews per clerkship.ApproachInterviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.Key resultsWe interviewed 17 committee members. Within and across specialties, committee members had distinct approaches to prioritizing and synthesizing assessment data. Participants expressed concerns about the quality of assessments, necessitating careful scrutiny of language, assessor identity, and other contextual factors. Committee members were concerned about how unconscious bias might impact assessors, but they felt minimally impacted at the committee level. When committee members knew students personally, they felt tension about how to use the information appropriately. Participants described high agreement within their committees; debate was more common when site directors reviewed students' files from other sites prior to meeting. Participants reported multiple committee benefits including faculty development and fulfillment, as well as improved grading consistency, fairness, and transparency. Groupthink and a passive approach to bias emerged as the two main threats to optimal group decision-making.ConclusionsGrading committee members view their practices as advantageous over individual grading, but they feel limited in their ability to address grading fairness and accuracy. Recommendations and support may help committees broaden their scope to address these aspirations.

Project description:Objectives: A potential new avenue to address the shortage of country doctors is to change the rules for admission to medical school. We therefore study the link between high-school grade point average and prospective physicians' choice to work in rural areas. To further inform the discussion about rules for admission, we also study the effects of other predictors: a measure of students' attitudes towards risk; whether they waited for their place of study (Wartesemester); whether their parents worked as medical doctors; and whether they have some practical experience in the medical sector. Methods: We conducted two internet surveys in 2012 and 2014. In the first survey, the sample comprised 701 students and in the second, 474 students. In both surveys, we asked students for their regional preferences; in the 2014 survey, we additionally asked students for their first, second, and third preferences among a comprehensive set of specializations, including becoming a general practitioner. In both surveys, we asked students for basic demographic information (age and gender), their parents' occupation, a measure of subjective income expectations, a measure of risk attitudes, and their high-school grade point average (Abiturnote), and First National Boards Examination grade (Physikum). In 2014, we additionally asked for waiting periods (Wartesemester) as well as for prior professional experience in the health-care sector. Results: We find that three factors increase the probability of having a preference for working in a rural area significantly, holding constant all other influences: having a medical doctor among the parents, having worse grades in the high-school grade point average, and being more risk averse. Moreover, we find that those willing to work in the countryside have significantly more experience in the medical sector before admission to medical school. Discussion: Our results suggest that a change in the selection process for medical school may increase the supply of country doctors. Instead of focusing on the high-school grade point average, universities could even more intensely screen for study motivation through interviews or by taking into account students' background, extracurricular activities, or waiting periods.

Project description:BackgroundDual processing theory of human cognition postulates that reasoning and decision-making can be described as a function of both an intuitive, experiential, affective system (system I) and/or an analytical, deliberative (system II) processing system. To date no formal descriptive model of medical decision-making based on dual processing theory has been developed. Here we postulate such a model and apply it to a common clinical situation: whether treatment should be administered to the patient who may or may not have a disease.MethodsWe developed a mathematical model in which we linked a recently proposed descriptive psychological model of cognition with the threshold model of medical decision-making and show how this approach can be used to better understand decision-making at the bedside and explain the widespread variation in treatments observed in clinical practice.ResultsWe show that physician's beliefs about whether to treat at higher (lower) probability levels compared to the prescriptive therapeutic thresholds obtained via system II processing is moderated by system I and the ratio of benefit and harms as evaluated by both system I and II. Under some conditions, the system I decision maker's threshold may dramatically drop below the expected utility threshold derived by system II. This can explain the overtreatment often seen in the contemporary practice. The opposite can also occur as in the situations where empirical evidence is considered unreliable, or when cognitive processes of decision-makers are biased through recent experience: the threshold will increase relative to the normative threshold value derived via system II using expected utility threshold. This inclination for the higher diagnostic certainty may, in turn, explain undertreatment that is also documented in the current medical practice.ConclusionsWe have developed the first dual processing model of medical decision-making that has potential to enrich the current medical decision-making field, which is still to the large extent dominated by expected utility theory. The model also provides a platform for reconciling two groups of competing dual processing theories (parallel competitive with default-interventionalist theories).

Project description:Objective: To explore the effect of real-world fear on risky decision-making under certainty and uncertainty. Methods: This quasi-experimental study enrolled non-psychology undergraduate volunteers aged between 17 and 20 years old from the Preventive Medical Institute medical school in Xi'an. Participants were randomly divided into two groups, and each group received a two-stage crossover design intervention (of a calm and fearful situation) and completed the tasks of risky decision-making under uncertainty (the balloon analog risk task: BART) and certainty (the Cambridge gambling task: CGT), respectively. The primary outcomes included the behavioral impulsivity measured by the BART value, and the speed of decision-making, the quality of decisions, the adventure index, behavioral impulsivity, and risk adjustment measured by CGT. The secondary outcome was the concentration of cortisol in the saliva. Results: A total of 60 questionnaires and data were obtained from 60 participants (28 males and 32 females, aged 19.55 ± 0.75). Compared with the calm situation, participants were more likely to have a lower BART value (p = 0.013), slower speed of decision-making (p < 0.05), and higher adventure index (p = 0.018) in the fearful situation. The quality of decisions (p = 0.189), behavioral impulsivity index (p = 0.182), and risk adjustment (p = 0.063) between subjects in the fearful and calm situations were comparable. Furthermore, the mean value of the adventure index of CGT in male subjects was significantly higher than that in female subjects (p < 0.05), and the cortisol concentration in saliva during the fearful situation was significantly higher compared to the calm situation (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Fear might reduce behavioral impulsivity under uncertainty, and increase the adventure index under certainty in risky decision-making. Risky behavior might be influenced by gender: under certainty in risky decision-making, men were more adventurous. Additionally, fear increased the secretion of cortisol in saliva.

Dataset Information

Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees.

Publications

Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets