Assessing Professionalism in Medicine – A Scoping Review of Assessment Tools from 1990 to 2018

Author:

Tay Kuang Teck1,Ng Shea1,Hee Jia Min2,Chia Elisha Wan Ying1ORCID,Vythilingam Divya3,Ong Yun Ting1,Chiam Min4,Chin Annelissa Mien Chew5,Fong Warren167ORCID,Wijaya Limin187,Toh Ying Pin9,Mason Stephen10ORCID,Krishna Lalit Kumar Radha14101112ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

2. National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore

3. School of Medicine, International Medical University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

4. Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore

5. Medical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore

6. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

7. Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore

8. Department of Infectious Diseases, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore

9. Department of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore

10. Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

11. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore

12. Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Abstract

Background: Medical professionalism enhances doctor-patient relationships and advances patient-centric care. However, despite its pivotal role, the concept of medical professionalism remains diversely understood, taught and thus poorly assessed with Singapore lacking a linguistically sensitive, context specific and culturally appropriate assessment tool. A scoping review of assessments of professionalism in medicine was thus carried out to better guide its understanding. Methods: Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) approach to scoping reviews was used to identify appropriate publications featured in four databases published between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2018. Seven members of the research team employed thematic analysis to evaluate the selected articles. Results: 3799 abstracts were identified, 138 full-text articles reviewed and 74 studies included. The two themes identified were the context-specific nature of assessments and competency-based stages in medical professionalism. Conclusions: Prevailing assessments of professionalism in medicine must contend with differences in setting, context and levels of professional development as these explicate variances found in existing assessment criteria and approaches. However, acknowledging the significance of context-specific competency-based stages in medical professionalism will allow the forwarding of guiding principles to aid the design of a culturally-sensitive and practical approach to assessing professionalism.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Cited by 21 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3