Cited by 71Innovations in Medical EducationPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics in medical practice

Medical Professionalism: Conflicting Values for Tomorrow's Doctors

Open access
Borgstrom, Erica, Cohn, Simon, Barclay, Stephen·2010·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background New values and practices associated with medical professionalism have created an increased interest in the concept. In the United Kingdom, it is a current concern in medical education and in the development of doctor appraisal and revalidation.Objective To investigate how final year medical students experience and interpret new values of professionalism as they emerge in relation to confronting dying patients and as they potentially conflict with older values that emerge through hidden dimensions of the curriculum.Methods Qualitative study using interpretative discourse analysis of anonymized student reflective portfolios. One hundred twenty-three final year undergraduate medical students (64 male and 59 female) from the University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine supplied 116 portfolios from general practice and 118 from hospital settings about patients receiving palliative or end of life care.Results Professional values were prevalent in all the portfolios. Students emphasised patient-centered, holistic care, synonymous with a more contemporary idea of professionalism, in conjunction with values associated with the 'old' model of professionalism that had not be directly taught to them. Integrating 'new' professional values was at times problematic. Three main areas of potential conflict were identified: ethical considerations, doctor-patient interaction and subjective boundaries. Students explicitly and implicitly discussed several tensions and described strategies to resolve them.Conclusions The conflicts outlined arise from the mix of values associated with different models of professionalism. Analysis indicates that 'new' models are not simply replacing existing elements. Whilst this analysis is of accounts from students within one UK medical school, the experience of conflict between different notions of professionalism and the three broad domains in which this conflict arises are relevant in other areas of medicine and in different national contexts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-010-1485-8

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Workday comments are common on Facebook.

    “whereas, workday comments are common on Facebook [12,18-20,22].”

    From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) addresses medical students’ experiences of professionalism, and the Managing Subjective Boundaries section discusses personal and professional roles. Neither addresses Facebook or how common workday comments are there; searches for “Facebook workday comments” and “social media posts about work or workday” found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sinclair S. Making Doctors. Oxford: Berg; 1997.
  2. Helman C. The dissection room. In: Body Myths. London: Chatto and Windus; 1991:114-23
  3. Lelonek M, Zink T. First code. Minn Med. 2007;90(8):31-2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borgstrom, E., Cohn, S., & Barclay, S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Borgstrom, Erica
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2010-08-26
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
1330-1336
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2063493163
Cited by
71
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Macmillan Cancer Support
  • University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
medical professionalism, professional values, value conflicts, palliative care, end-of-life care, dying patients, medical students, hidden curriculum, physician-patient relationship, ethical considerations, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Social Values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review