Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I What is to be taught and learned
- Part II Theory
- Part III Principles
- 8 General principles for establishing programs to support professionalism and professional identity formation at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels
- 9 Faculty development to support professionalism and professional identity formation
- 10 Becoming interprofessional: professional identity formation in the health professions
- 11 Assessment of professionalism and progress in the development of a professional identity
- 12 Remediation of unprofessional behavior
- 13 Professional identity formation, the practicing physician, and continuing professional development
- 14 Professionalism, professional identity, and licensing and accrediting bodies
- Part IV Case studies in promoting professionalism and professional identity formation across the continuum
- Part V The future
- Index
- References
14 - Professionalism, professional identity, and licensing and accrediting bodies
from Part III - Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2016
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I What is to be taught and learned
- Part II Theory
- Part III Principles
- 8 General principles for establishing programs to support professionalism and professional identity formation at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels
- 9 Faculty development to support professionalism and professional identity formation
- 10 Becoming interprofessional: professional identity formation in the health professions
- 11 Assessment of professionalism and progress in the development of a professional identity
- 12 Remediation of unprofessional behavior
- 13 Professional identity formation, the practicing physician, and continuing professional development
- 14 Professionalism, professional identity, and licensing and accrediting bodies
- Part IV Case studies in promoting professionalism and professional identity formation across the continuum
- Part V The future
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Because self-regulation or physician-led regulation is a fundamental aspect of being a professional, it is important that those entering the medical profession understand the nature of this regulation, the organizations within medicine mandated to carry out these functions, and how regulation of the profession relates to them as individuals. For these reasons, material relating to the regulatory processes must be included as a part of educational programs designed to support the development of the identities of future physicians so that they may better understand their roles in the profession and in society. While this chapter emphasizes the current state of regulation in the English-speaking world, the trends outlined are found in most developed countries.
Every patient wants to be sure that they have a “good” doctor. No right-thinking person would knowingly choose a bad doctor or even one who they think is barely adequate. The public expects regulators, educators, and employers to provide them with good doctors, to make sure their doctors stay that way, and to act promptly to protect them when they do not. Professor Ron Paterson, former New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner, said, “It is generally accepted that the vast majority of doctors are well-intentioned and practice safely. But good intentions and generally adequate care are not enough. As a member of the public, and as a potential patient, I want to know that I can rely on the public medical register as assurance that any listed doctor is competent.”
Medical regulation in its various forms – licensure, certification, and accreditation in particular – is the means through which the state is expected to make sure that the public is indeed served by doctors who are ethical and competent.2 In some countries, the United States and British Commonwealth for example, the state has delegated part of its responsibility to some medical organizations through self-regulation. Self-regulation is thus a privilege, granted by the state, that has to be earned and constantly justified. It is not the right that some doctors think it is.
Medical professionalism has been defined as a set of values, behaviors, and relationships that underpin the public's trust in doctors.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Teaching Medical ProfessionalismSupporting the Development of a Professional Identity, pp. 201 - 216Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
1. . Regulating doctors: finding the optimal balance between professionalism and self-regulation. In Revalidation: The Way Ahead. Publication of proceedings. International Revalidation Symposium: Contributing to the Evidence Base. London, UK: General Medical Council; 2010:3–7. [Accessed Dec. 29, 2014.] Available from www.gmc-uk.org/International_Revalidation_Symposium_Publication_of_proceedings.pdf_44014486.pdf.
2. . Patients, their Doctors and the Politics of Medical Professionalism. 29th John P. McGovern Award lecture. Oxford, UK: American Osler Society; 2014. [Accessed Dec. 29, 2014.] Available from http://aosler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-McGovern-Lecture-Booklet.pdf.
3. . The performance of doctors. I: professionalism and self regulation in a changing world. BMJ. 1997:314(7093):1540–42.Google Scholar
4. . Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy and Policy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1994.
5. Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors in society. Medical professionalism in a changing world. Clin Med. 2005; 5(6 Suppl 1):S5–S40.
6. . Professionalism and medicine's social contract with society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006:449:170–76.Google Scholar
8. , , . Assessing professionalism for accreditation. In , ed. Measuring Medical Professionalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:265–80.
9. . Regulating the Medical Profession: Doctors and the Public Interest. Healthcare 1997/1998. London, UK: Kings Fund; 1998.
10. . Towards the Emancipation of Patients; Patients’ Experiences and the Patient Movement. Bristol, UK: Policy Press; 2010.
11. . The price of deceit: the reflections of an advocate. In , , , eds. Medical Mishaps: Pieces of the Puzzle. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1999:246–56.
12. The Shipman Inquiry. Fifth report. Safeguarding Patients: Lessons from the Past, Proposals for the Future. . London, UK: Stationery Office; 2004.
13. , , , , eds. Through the Patient's Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-Centered Care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1993.
14. , , . Setting Standards: The Views of Members of the Public and Doctors on the Standards of Care and Practice They Expect of Doctors. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2006. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.gmc-uk.org/Setting_Standards_Exec_Summary_March06.pdf_25416640.pdf.
15. . What do patients and the public want from primary care? BMJ. 2005; 331(7526):1199–1201.Google Scholar
16. , , , . What Do Patients and Relatives See as Key Competencies for Intensive Care Doctors? Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2006. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.pickereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/What-do-patients-…-see-as-key-competencies….pdf.
17. , , , , . A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998:47(10);1573–88.Google Scholar
18. , , , , . Patients’ perspectives on ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006; 81(3):338–44.Google Scholar
19. , . How Engaged Are People in Their Health Care? Findings of a National Telephone Survey. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2005. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.pickereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/How-engaged-are-people-in-their-health-care-….pdf.
20. , . Patient-Focused Interventions: A Review of the Evidence. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2006. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/PatientFocusedInterventions_ReviewOfTheEvidence.pdf.
21. IPSOS-MORI. Attitudes to Medical Regulation and Revalidation of Doctors: Research among Doctors and the General Public. London, UK: Department of Health; 2005. [Accessed Dec. 1, 2014]. Available from www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/doh.pdf.
22. . Engaging Patients in Their Healthcare: How Is the UK Doing Relative to Other Countries? Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2006. [Accessed Dec. 29, 2014]. Available from www.pickereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Engaging-patients-in-their-healthcare-how-is-the-UK-doing….pdf.
23. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Revalidation Consultation Summary 2006. Toronto, ON: CPSO; 2006. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/downloads/cpsodocuments/policies/RevalidationConsultSummaryApr06.pdf.
24. The Gallup Organization for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Board-Certification of Physicians. Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization; 2003.
26. . Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 4. New York, NY: Carnegie Foundation; 1910.
27. , . Every patient should have a good doctor. In The Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain & Ireland; Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd. Maintaining Patients’ Trust: Modern Medical Professionalism 2011. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd; 2011:64–73. [Accessed Dec. 29, 2014.] Available from www.scts.org/_userfiles/resources/634420268996790965_SCTS_Professionalism_FINAL.pdf.
28. Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. Learning from Bristol: The Report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. London, UK: Stationery Office; 2001.
29. The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. Executive Summary & Volume 3: Present and Future Annexes. Chaired by Sir . London, UK: Stationery Office; 2013. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from http://midstaffspublicinquiry.com.
30. . Regulating British Medicine: The General Medical Council. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 1992.
31. . Good Doctors, Safer Patients. London, UK: Department of Health; 2006.
32. , . A Review of Professional Codes and Standards for Doctors in the UK, USA and Canada. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe; 2006. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.pickereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/A-review-of-professional-codes-…-UK-USA-and-Canada.pdf.
33. General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. edition. London, UK: GMC; 2013.
34. Australian Medical Council. Good Medical Practice Australia – A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia. Canberra, AU: Australian Medical Council; 2010. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2014.] Available from www.amc.org.au/about/good-medical-practice.
35. Medical Council of New Zealand. Good Medical Practice New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: MCNZ; 2013. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2014.] Available from www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/good-medical-practice.pdf.
36. ABIM Foundation, American Board of Internal Medicine; ACP-ASIM Foundation, American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal Medicine; European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136(3):243–46.
37. National Alliance for Physician Competence. Guide to Good Medical Practice – USA. Dallas, TX: National Alliance for Physician Competence; 2009. [Accessed Dec. 11, 2014.] Available from http://gmpusa.org.
38. . The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Med Teach. 2007; 29(7):648–54.Google Scholar
39. , ed. The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework. Better Standards. Better Physicians. Better Care. Ottawa, ON: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2005. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/canmeds/resources/publications/framework_full_e.pdf.
40. , . Quality Assurance in Medical Regulation in an International Context: Report for the Department of Health England. London, UK: University of Lincoln; 2006.
41. General Medical Council. The Good Medical Practice Framework for Appraisal and Revalidation. London, UK: GMC; 2013. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.gmc-uk.org/The_Good_medical_practice_framework_for_appraisal_and_revalidation___DC5707.pdf_56235089.pdf.
42. General Medical Council. Revalidation: What You Need to Do. London, UK: GMC; 2013. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.gmc-uk.org/Revalidation___What_you_need_to_do.pdf_54286567.pdf.
43. Nursing and Midwifery Council. Revalidation Evidence Report. London, UK: Nursing and Midwifery Council; 2014. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.nmc-uk.org/Documents/Consultations/2014/Revalidation-evidence-report.pdf.
44. American Board of Medical Specialties. Standards for the ABMS Program for Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Chicago, IL: American Board of Medical Specialties; 2014. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.abms.org/media/1109/standards-for-the-abms-program-for-moc-final.pdf.
45. , , , . Board certification in internal medicine and cardiology: historical success and future challenges. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2015; 25(4):305–11.Google Scholar
46. . MOC Watch: Debunking ABIM Pass Rate Myths. New York, NY: MedPage Today; 2014. [Accessed Jan. 21, 2015.] Available from www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/MedicalEducation/47601.
47. , , , , , . Maintenance of licensure: protecting the public, promoting quality health care. In Revalidation: The Way Ahead. Publication of proceedings: International Revalidation Symposium. London, UK: GMC; 2010:17–24. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.gmc-uk.org/International_Revalidation_Symposium_Publication_of_proceedings.pdf_44014486.pdf.
48. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 2015. Ottawa, ON: RCPSC; 2015. [Accessed Jan. 21, 2015.] Available from www.royalcollege.ca/canmeds2015.
49. . The Doctors’ Tale: Professionalism and Public Trust. Oxon, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2003:139–96.
50. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. AAPS Takes MOC to Court. Tucson, AZ: AAPS; 2015. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2015.] Available from www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/aaps_takes_moc_to_court/.
51. Change Board Recertification. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2015.] Available from www.changeboardrecert.com/index.php.
52. , . Maintenance of certification 2.0–strong start, continued evolution. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(2):104–06.Google Scholar
53. . Boarded to death–why maintenance of certification is bad for doctors and patients. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(2):106–08.Google Scholar
55. Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain & Ireland; Dendrite Clinical Systems. Maintaining Patients’ Trust: Modern Medical Professionalism 2011. Henley-on-Thames, UK: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd; 2011. [Accessed Dec. 29, 2014.] Available from www.scts.org/_userfiles/resources/634420268996790965_SCTS_Professionalism_FINAL.pdf.
56. , , , , on behalf of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland. UK Heart Surgery: What Patients Can Expect from Their Surgeons. London, UK: Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland; 2011. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.ucl.ac.uk/nicor/audits/adultcardiac/documents/reports/bluebookforpatients.
57. , , . Publishing SSMD: the risks outweigh the benefits. Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2015; 97(4):155–59.Google Scholar
58. . Patient-facing data is essential in the digital era. Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2015; 97(4):160–63.Google Scholar
59. . NHS Chief: Surgeons Have “Moral Responsibility” to Publish Death Rates. (Interview with .) London, UK: The Guardian; 2014. [Accessed Feb. 2, 2015.] Available from www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/19/nhs-chief-surgeons-moral-responsibility-publish-death-rates.
61. , , . NHS transparency: not yet perfect, but a huge step forward. BMJ. 2013; 347:f4402.Google Scholar
62. . Personal communication. Feb. 2, 2015.
- 3
- Cited by