Résumés
Abstract
Background: The affordances, or characteristics, of learner mistreatment reporting mechanisms can shape the information elicited from these mechanisms, which has an impact on how institutions understand the scope and nature of learner mistreatment. This study compares whether and how the affordances of two mistreatment reporting mechanisms elicit different information about learner mistreatment at a single institution.
Methods: We conducted an interpretive content analysis of reports submitted using two mechanisms, one that elicits reports through end-of-rotation evaluations and one through a voluntary web-based system, between July 2015 and December 2021. We extracted the metadata from reports and applied a coding framework informed by the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to the narrative descriptions in reports. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and the chi-square test on SPSS v.27.
Results: We collected 90 elicited reports and 240 voluntary reports of mistreatment. Similar types of mistreatment were reported through each mechanism, but disrespectful behaviour and bias and discrimination were reported significantly more in voluntary reports. Elicited reports most frequently included incidents of learner mistreatment in clinical settings, whereas voluntary reports included incidents from a wide variety of settings and people or were issues other than mistreatment.
Discussion: Utilizing multiple learner mistreatment reporting mechanisms with different affordances can mitigate the limitations of a single mechanism, help identify a more nuanced understanding of learner mistreatment, and increase reporters’ choices for how and when to report mistreatment. Increased information allows an institution to address specific incidents and develop targeted, preventive educational activities and faculty development.
Résumé
Contexte : Les possibilités, ou caractéristiques, des mécanismes de signalement des mauvais traitements infligés aux apprenants peuvent influencer les informations obtenues grâce à ces mécanismes, ce qui a un impact sur la manière dont les établissements comprennent la portée et la nature des mauvais traitements infligés aux apprenants. Cette étude compare si et comment les fonctionnalités de deux mécanismes de signalement des mauvais traitements permettent d'obtenir des informations différentes sur les mauvais traitements infligés aux apprenants dans un même établissement.
Méthodes : Nous avons procédé à une analyse interprétative du contenu des rapports soumis à l'aide de deux mécanismes, l'un permettant d'obtenir des rapports par le biais d'évaluations de fin de stage et l'autre par le biais d'un système web volontaire, entre juillet 2015 et décembre 2021. Nous avons extrait les métadonnées des rapports et appliqué un cadre de codage inspiré de l'outil d'analyse Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) aux descriptions narratives contenues dans les rapports. L'analyse des données comprenait des statistiques descriptives et le test du chi carré sur SPSS v.27.
Résultats : Nous avons recueilli 90 rapports sollicités et 240 rapports volontaires de mauvais traitements. Des types similaires de mauvais traitements ont été signalés par chaque mécanisme, mais les comportements irrespectueux, les préjugés et la discrimination ont été signalés de manière significativement plus fréquente dans les rapports volontaires. Les rapports sollicités comprenaient le plus souvent des incidents de mauvais traitements infligés à des apprenants dans des contextes cliniques, tandis que les rapports volontaires comprenaient des incidents provenant d'une grande variété de contextes et de personnes ou concernaient des problèmes autres que les mauvais traitements.
Discussion : L'utilisation de plusieurs mécanismes de signalement des mauvais traitements infligés aux apprenants, offrant des possibilités différentes, peut atténuer les limites d'un mécanisme unique, aider à développer une compréhension plus nuancée des mauvais traitements infligés aux apprenants et offrir aux personnes qui signalent ces incidents un plus grand choix quant à la manière et au moment de le faire. L'augmentation des informations permet à un établissement de traiter des incidents spécifiques et de mettre en place des activités éducatives préventives ciblées et des programmes de développement du personnel enseignant.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Mazer LM, Bereknyei Merrell S, Hasty BN, Stave C, Lau JN. Assessment of programs aimed to decrease or prevent mistreatment of medical trainees. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180870. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0870
- Walvoord EC, Howenstine MS, Allen BL, et al. Engaging all stakeholders to create a trusted, data-driven, process improvement approach to addressing learner mistreatment. Teach Learn Med. 2024;36(1):61-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2122979
- Fried JM, Vermillion M, Parker NH, Uijtdehaage S. Eradicating medical student mistreatment: a longitudinal study of one institution’s efforts. Acad Med. 2012;87(9):1191-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182625408
- Leitman IM, Muller D, Miller S, et al. Implementation of an online reporting system to identify unprofessional behaviors and mistreatment directed at trainees at an academic medical center. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(12):e2244661. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44661
- Bell A, Cavanagh A, Connelly CE, Walsh A, Vanstone M. Why do few medical students report their experiences of mistreatment to administration? Med Educ. 2021;55(4):462-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14395
- Sahiti Q, Shearer C, Thomson C, Sutherland L, Bowes D. Addressing medical resident mistreatment: a resident-centred approach. Med Teach. 2024;46(6):769-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2279903
- Vanstone M, Cavanagh A, Molinaro M, et al. How medical learners and educators decide what counts as mistreatment: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2023;57(10):910-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15065
- Williams-Karnesky RL, Russell JC, Wang ML. More than aligning perception: impact of an educational intervention on medical student mistreatment reporting. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;231(1):112-21.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.03.029
- Gan R, Snell L. When the learning environment is suboptimal: exploring medical students’ perceptions of “mistreatment.” Acad Med. 2014;89(4):608-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000172
- Fleit HB, Iuli RJ, Fischel JE, Lu WH, Chandran L. A model of influences on the clinical learning environment: the case for change at one US medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0900-9
- Smith-Coggins R, Prober CG, Wakefield K, Farias R. Zero tolerance: implementation and evaluation of the Stanford medical student mistreatment prevention program. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:195-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-016-0523-1
- Gibson,JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1966.
- Norman DA. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
- Evans SK, Pearce KE, Vitak J, Treem JW. Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2017;22(1):35-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
- Davis JL, Chouinard JB. Theorizing affordances: from request to refuse. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2016;36(4):241-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944
- Drisko JW, Maschi T. Interpretive content analysis (pp. 57-80). In: Content Analysis. Oxford University Press, USA; 2016.
- Gillespie A, Reader TW. The healthcare complaints analysis tool: development and reliability testing of a method for service monitoring and organisational learning. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):937-46. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004596
- London School of Economics and Political Science. The healthcare complaints analysis tool. v 3. Published 2015. Available from https://healthcarecomplaintsanalysis.com/. [Accessed Apr 4, 2024].
- Crosbie C, McDougall A, Pangli H, Abu-Laban RB, Calder LA. College complaints against resident physicians in Canada: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 2013 to 2017. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(1):E35-E42. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210026

