Cited by 89Ethics in medical practiceInnovations in Medical EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcare

A randomized trial of ethics education for medical house officers.

Open access
Sulmasy, D P, Geller, G, Levine, D M, Faden, R R·1993·Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract

We report the results of a randomized trial to assess the impact of an innovative ethics curriculum on the knowledge and confidence of 85 medical house officers in a university hospital programme, as well as their responses to a simulated clinical case. Twenty-five per cent of the house officers received a lecture series (Limited Intervention or LI), 25 per cent received lectures and case conferences, with an ethicist in attendance (Extensive Intervention or EI), and 50 per cent served as controls. A post-intervention questionnaire was administered. Knowledge scores did not differ among the groups. Confidence regarding ethical issues was significantly greater in the aggregate intervention group (3.9 on a 1 to 5 scale) compared to the control group (3.6). Confidence regarding procedural issues related to ethics was significantly higher for the EI group than for the controls (4.0 v 2.8). Responses to a simulated case showed that significantly fewer house officers in the EI group would intubate a patient for whom such therapy would be futile (EI = 57 per cent, LI = 87 per cent, Controls = 82 per cent). We conclude that ethics education can have an impact on house officers' confidence and their responses to a simulated case, and that the EI was more effective than the LI. Such results have implications regarding the implementation of ethics education during residency.

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 · 10.1136/jme.19.3.157

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • A goal-oriented educational program has been shown to improve learner awareness, attitudes, knowledge, moral reasoning, and confidence.

    “A goal-oriented educational program [2] (Table 1) has been shown to improve learner awareness, attitudes, knowledge, moral reasoning, and confidence [3,4].”

    From Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Knowledge section reports significantly higher confidence after ethics education, particularly among house officers who reported poorer prior preparation. It explicitly says knowledge scores were not significantly affected. The passages do not establish improvements in awareness, attitudes, or moral reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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: 1

  1. Medical Ethics Subcommittee of the American Board of Pediatrics. Teaching and evaluation of interper- sonal skills and ethical decision making in pediatrics. Pediatrics 1987; 79: 829-833.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sulmasy, D. P., Geller, G., Levine, D. M., & Faden, R. R.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-09
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
157-163
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
OpenAlex
W2107015380
Cited by
89
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Georgetown University
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32hl007180-45)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI-T32 HL07180)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 00035)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
ethics education, medical residents, ethical knowledge, simulated clinical scenarios, case conferences, residency training
MeSH terms
Curriculum, Decision Making, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Internship and Residency, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Random Allocation, Schools, Medical, Baltimore, Program Evaluation, Bioethical Issues, Ethicists, Withholding Treatment, Interdisciplinary Communication

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