The University of Texas System established the Transformation in Medical Education (TIME) initiative to reconfigure and shorten medical education from college matriculation through medical school graduation. One of the key changes proposed as part of the TIME initiative was to begin emphasizing professional identity formation (PIF) at the premedical level. The TIME Steering Committee appointed an interdisciplinary task force to explore the fundamentals of PIF and to formulate strategies that would help students develop their professional identity as they transform into physicians. In this article, the authors describe the task force's process for defining PIF and developing a framework, which includes 10 key aspects, 6 domains, and 30 subdomains to characterize the complexity of physician identity. The task force mapped this framework onto three developmental phases of medical education typified by the undergraduate student, the clerkship-level medical student, and the graduating medical student. The task force provided strategies for the promotion and assessment of PIF for each subdomain at each of the three phases, in addition to references and resources. Assessments were suggested for student feedback, curriculum evaluation, and theoretical development. The authors emphasize the importance of longitudinal, formative assessment using a combination of existing assessment methods. Though not unique to the medical profession, PIF is critical to the practice of exemplary medicine and the well-being of patients and physicians.
A barrier to the development and refinement of ethics education in and across health professional schools is that there is not an agreed upon instrument or method for assessment in ethics education. The most widely used ethics education assessment instrument is the Defining Issues Test (DIT) I & II. This instrument is not specific to the health professions. But it has been modified for use in, and influenced the development of other instruments in, the health professions. The DIT contains certain philosophical assumptions ("Kohlbergian" or "neo-Kohlbergian") that have been criticized in recent years. It is also expensive for large institutions to use. The purpose of this article is to offer a rubric-which the authors have named the Health Professional Ethics Rubric-for the assessment of several learning outcomes related to ethics education in health science centers. This rubric is not open to the same philosophical critiques as the DIT and other such instruments. This rubric is also practical to use. This article includes the rubric being advocated, which was developed by faculty and administrators at a large academic health science center as a part of a campus-wide ethics education initiative. The process of developing the rubric is described, as well as certain limitations and plans for revision.
We first heard about this case from nurses in one of our intensive care units (ICUs) while we were conducting an inservice. When the session was over, we discussed it between ourselves, and decided that it must have been misrepresented. The case had been presented as one of a teenager who was brain dead, had been so for six months, yet had been brought into the ICU for treatment. We have run into this before, we thought: medical professionals confusing brain death with persistent vegetative state (PVS). But, of course, we reasoned, no one can be brain dead for six months. To us, as it would to many, the case sounded like a clinical and ethical impossibility.A week later, we were called by an attending physician from another ICU, at the urging of that unit's nursing staff. They had a patient who was brain dead, whose presence was causing distress among the staff. Ronald Chamberlain, a fifteen-year-old boy, had been a patient at a nearby longterm rehabilitation facility that is equipped to care for ventilator-dependent patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.