The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Bridging the education–action gap: a near-peer case-based undergraduate ethics teaching programme
Abstract
Undergraduate ethics teaching has made significant progress in the past decade, with evidence showing that students and trainee doctors feel more confident in identifying and analysing ethical issues. There is general consensus that ethics education should enable students and doctors to take ethically appropriate actions, and nurture moral integrity. However, the literature reports that doctors continue to find it difficult to take action when faced with perceived unethical behaviour. This has been evident in recent healthcare scandals, in which care has fallen below acceptable ethical standards, despite the presence of professional ethical guidelines and competencies. The National Foundation Training Programme forms the first 2 years of training for new UK doctors. We designed a Foundation Doctor (FD)-led teaching programme in which medical students were invited to bring cases and experiences from clinical placements for small group discussion facilitated by FDs. The aim was to enable students to act ethically in practice through developing moral sensitivity and moral identity, together with skills in ethical reasoning and tools to address barriers to taking ethical action. FDs were chosen as facilitators, based on the evidence that near-peer is an effective form of teaching in medicine and may provide positive role models for students. This article reviews the background rationale for the programme and its design. Important themes emerging from the case discussions are explored. Student and FD facilitator feedbacks are evaluated, and practical challenges to the implementation of this type of programme are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“There is, however, a difference between learning how to manage ethical problems in everyday healthcare work and how these problems are actually managed, since one’s own inabilities or limitations may influence the outcome [62].”
From Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1136/jme.2005.014597 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2010.036640 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2008.026609 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-199304000-00003 · DOI
- 10.1136/jme.2006.018010 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-199509000-00011 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00607.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01915.x · DOI
- 10.1097/00001888-199411000-00001 · DOI
- Bowman D , Green M. Putting ethical principles into practice. BMJ Careers. 1 March 2012. http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20006842 (accessed Feb 2016). · DOI
- 10.1080/01421590701504077 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andersson, H., Svensson, A., Frank, C., Rantala, A., Holmberg, M., & Bremer, A. (2022) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-022-00766-z · Cited by 338
“There is, however, a difference between learning how to manage ethical problems in everyday healthcare work and how these problems are actually managed, since one’s own inabilities or limitations may influence the outcome [62].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Kong, W. M., & Knight, S.
- Affiliations
- Central Middlesex Hospital (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kong, Wing May
- ORCID
- Knight, Selena
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-01-31
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 692-696
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2584637853
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (ACF-2015-17-006)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- medical ethics education, near-peer teaching, case-based teaching, undergraduate medical students, ethical action, moral sensitivity, moral identity, moral reasoning, clinical practicum, role models
- MeSH terms
- Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Ethics, Medical, Ethics, Professional, Humans, Students, Medical, Teaching, Moral Development
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