Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study.

Professionalism is a critical competency for emergency medicine (EM) physicians, and professional behavior affects patient satisfaction. However, the findings of various studies indicate that there are differences in the interpretation of professionalism among EM resident physicians and faculty physicians. Using a cross-sectional survey, we aimed to analyze common challenges to medical professionalism for Japanese EM physicians and survey the extent of professionalism coursework completed during undergraduate medical education. We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional survey of EM resident physicians and faculty physicians at academic conferences and eight teaching hospitals in Japan using the questionnaire by Barry and colleagues. We analyzed the frequency of providing either the best or second-best answers to each scenario as the main outcome measure and compared the frequencies between EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians. Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyze data. A total of 176 physicians (86 EM resident physicians and 90 EM faculty physicians) completed the survey. The response rate was 92.6%. The most challenging scenario presented to participants dealt with sexual harassment, and only 44.5% chose the best or second-best answers, followed by poor responses to the confidentiality scenario (69.9%). The frequency of either the best or second-best responses to the confidentiality scenario was significantly greater for EM resident physicians than for EM faculty physicians (77.1% versus 62.9%, p = 0.048). More participants in the EM resident physician group completed formal courses in medical professionalism than those in the EM faculty physician group (25.8% versus 5.5%, p < 0.01). Further, EM faculty physicians were less likely than EM resident physicians to provide acceptable responses in terms of confidentiality, and few of both had received professionalism training through school curricula. Continuous professionalism education focused on the prevention of sexual harassment and gender gap is needed for both EM resident physicians and faculty physicians in Japan.

Introduction

Professionalism is a critical competency for physicians. Furthermore, professional behavior affects patient satisfaction.[1] The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) regard professionalism as a way to accomplish a commitment to carry out professional responsibilities, adhere to ethical principles, and demonstrate sensitivity to a diverse patient population.[2] Teaching and measuring medical professionalism are sometimes challenging activities because of the several inherent contexts.[3-8] However, there are several scientific evidences that support the effectiveness of a systematic educational approach to medical professionalism.[9– 12]

The specialty of emergency medicine (EM) is unique because shared decision-making and effective communication must take place in a short period. Thus, medical professionalism is critically important for EM physicians. However, 45% of EM program directors reported that two or more resident physicians have exhibited unprofessional behavior in their programs each year.[10] Several studies have pointed to differences in interpretations of professionalism among EM resident physicians,[10,11] and resident physicians describe role models as most influential for interpreting the meaning of professionalism.

The Barry Questionnaire is an assessment tool for evaluating views regarding professionalism; it is widely used in the US and Japan.[12-14] In a previous study, participants in the US performed better than participants in Japan in scenarios that were presented involving minor confidentiality and sexual harassment, but not for three scenarios (physician impairment, conflict of interest, and acceptance of gifts).[12] A recent study of novice physicians using the Barry Questionnaire mentions improvements in medical professionalism with respect to certain ethical challenges in Japan.[14]

To the best of our knowledge, there is no study citing a difference in medical professionalism between EM resident physicians and faculty physicians. Recognition of a gap in views regarding professionalism between EM resident physicians and faculty physicians will enable innovative curricular changes in EM postgraduate education.

Thus, by using a cross-sectional multicenter survey, we aimed to analyze responses regarding common challenges to medical professionalism for Japanese EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians. Further, we surveyed the extent of education related to professionalism.

Method

Study design and setting

We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study of EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians in Japan using the Barry Questionnaire. Instead of mailing a survey to potential participants, we used existing hospital conferences or academic conferences held by Emergency Medicine Alliance, Japan, for administering the questionnaire. Those conferences were the regular staff conferences and were traditionally held on weekday mornings in most Japanese teaching hospitals. Tokuda contacted ACGME for permission to use the Barry questionnaire (ACGME 2004). Permission was granted for translation and its use for the previous study.[12] The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tokyo Bay Urayasu-Ichikawa Medical Center, Chiba, Japan (approval number: 227).

Study population

The questionnaire was administered at eight geographically diverse tertiary care medical centers (three university hospitals and four community hospitals) and at biannual EM academic conferences held in 2017 by the Emergency Medicine Alliance, which is an organization designed to promote emergency medicine education by training emergency physicians and general internists. All participants were Japanese, and they were informed about the study, based on which they provided written consent prior to the survey. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity.

Study instrument

The Barry Questionnaire was developed and validated in a study conducted in Colorado (US) by Barry et al.[13] They performed the following steps to develop and evaluate the instrument. A scenario review was conducted by a panel of people with experience in medical ethics, clinical practice, or law; a consensus on the best response and second-best response for each scenario was derived. We have presented each scenario of the Barry Questionnaire with the best response and the second-best response in the supporting information. The Japanese version of the Barry Questionnaire was developed and implemented by Tokuda et al. in 2009.[12] In this previous study, content validity, cultural adaptation, and translation of the Japanese version of the instrument was confirmed by an independent panel comprised of physicians responsible for educational programs in participating hospitals. Their reference was the professionalism guideline of the Japanese Medical Association.

The questionnaire presents six challenging cases relevant to medical professionalism: acceptance of gifts, conflict of interest, confidentiality, physician impairment, sexual harassment, and honesty in documentation. Each scenario is followed by four or five possible responses.

After reviewing all six scenarios, participants were asked, “Have you ever experienced formal education in medical professionalism?” The question required a “yes” or “no” response. If the answer to this question was “yes,” participants were then asked, “How many hours of coursework devoted to professionalism did you take?” and “Were you satisfied with the contents of these educational sessions? (yes or no)” For demographic information, we collected data regarding professional specialty, gender, and work status (resident or faculty physician) from each participant.

Study outcomes

The primary outcome measure was the frequency with which EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians provided either the best or second-best answers to each scenario. Secondary outcome measures were the frequencies of providing either the best or second-best answers to each scenario when stratifying participating physicians by gender or professionalism education completed as an undergraduate medical student.

Statistical analysis

We analyzed the frequency of providing either the best or second-best answers to each scenario as the main outcome measure and compared frequencies between EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians.

In addition, we analyzed the frequency of selecting either the best or second-best answer to each scenario and compared those frequencies when stratifying participating physicians by gender or professionalism education received as an undergraduate medical student.

Based on the results of a previous study by Tokuda et al., we projected that an observation of 72 physicians in each group would provide 80% capacity to detect a 20% decrease in the right responses (90% versus 70%).

Fisher’s exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyze data, where appropriate. Data were analyzed using Stata version 14 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During the study period, 176 EM physicians (86 EM resident physicians and 90 EM faculty physicians) completed the survey. The response rate was 92.6% (Fig 1). Overall, the median number of postgraduate years of the participants was six; further, 21.0% were females. The participants’ characteristics over the study periods are shown in Table 1. The ratio of learning experiences related to medical professionalism through school curricula was significantly higher for EM resident physicians than EM faculty physicians (25.8% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.01). Of 176 participants, 25 (14%) participants (20 EM resident physicians and 5 faculty physicians) reported completing formal educational courses about medical professionalism. Among 25 participants, the median hours for coursework devoted to professionalism were three hours (the range was 1–30 hours) of the entire school curricula. Of these 25 participants, six (24%) participants (including five resident physicians) reported that they were satisfied with these educational sessions.

Fig 1

Patient flow in the study (EM: Emergency medicine).

Table 1

Participants’ characteristics according to physician work status.

Variables	Total	Resident	Faculty	p-value
	N = 176	n = 86	n = 90
PGY, median (IQR)	6 (5–11)	5 (3–5)	10 (8–16)	<0.01
Male, n (%)	139 (79.0)	60 (69.8)	79 (86.8)	<0.01
Community hospital, n (%)	119 (67.6)	62 (72.0)	57 (63.3)	0.26
Professionalism education in medical school, n (%)	25 (14.2)	19 (25.8)	5 (5.5)	<0.01

Abbreviations: PGY, postgraduate year; IQR, interquartile range

Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables, Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables

Table 2 shows participants’ characteristics according to the institution of participating physicians. For each institution, we report a number of eligible faculty/resident physicians as well as participating faculty/resident physicians.

Table 2

Participants’ characteristics according to institution.

Institution	Eligible physicians			Participating physicians
	Resident	Faculty	Institutional	Resident	Faculty	Institutional
	n = 98	n = 93	n = 191	n = 86	n = 90	N = 176
A	8	9	17	8	9	17
B	9	9	18	3	9	12
C	6	6	12	6	6	12
D	16	8	24	16	8	24
E	6	10	16	4	9	13
F	6	6	12	5	6	11
G	9	7	16	8	7	15
H	2	4	6	2	4	6
Academic conferences	36	34	70	34	32	66

Table 3 compares the frequencies with which study participants (EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians) provided the best or second-best responses. Linear plot graphs correlating response to each scenario versus PGY were provided in supporting information (S2 -S8). The frequency of either the best or second-best responses to the confidentiality scenario was significantly greater for EM resident physicians than for EM faculty physicians (77.1% vs. 62.9%; p = 0.048). The most challenging case for all participating physicians was selecting the best or second-best responses to the sexual harassment scenario (i.e., frequency was 44.5%). For the confidentiality scenario, the frequency of best or second-best responses was 69.9%. In the sexual harassment scenario, no physician chose the worst response (i.e., “Do nothing, on the basis that the faculty member was simply showing his appreciation for a job well done”).

Table 3

Frequency of the best or second-best responses for scenarios presented by residents and faculty.

Scenario	Total	Resident	Faculty	p-value
	n = 176	n = 86	n = 90
Gifts, n (%)	153 (88.9)	73 (87.9)	80 (89.8)	0.81
Conflict of interest, n (%)	154 (89.7)	72 (86.7)	82 (92.2)	0.32
Confidentiality, n (%)	121 (69.9)	64 (77.1)	56 (62.9)	0.048
Impairment, n (%)	145 (84.3)	67 (80.7)	78 (87.6)	0.29
Harassment, n (%)	77 (44.5)	36 (43.3)	41 (46.1)	0.76
Honesty, n (%)	151 (87.3)	76 (81.7)	74 (83.1)	0.11

Abbreviation: EM, Emergency medicine

Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables

Table 4 shows the frequencies of the best or second-best responses when stratified by participants’ gender. There were no differences in the responses for each scenario between male and female physicians.

Table 4

Frequency of the best or second-best responses according to gender for the scenarios presented.

Scenario	Male	Female	p-value
	n = 139	n = 37
Gifts, n (%)	123 (89.1)	30 (88.2)	1
Conflict of interest, n (%)	123 (89.1)	32 (91.4)	1
Confidentiality, n (%)	92 (66.7)	28 (82.3)	0.1
Impairment, n (%)	117 (84.8)	28 (82.3)	0.79
Harassment, n (%)	61 (44.2)	16 (47.1)	0.85
Honesty, n (%)	120 (87.0)	30 (88.2)	1

Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables

Table 5 compares the frequencies of best or second-best responses for EM physicians who had been educated in medical professionalism through their school curricula and those without any education regarding professionalism in their school curricula. There were no significant differences in responses for each scenario.

Table 5

Frequency of best or second-best responses for the scenarios presented according to undergraduate professionalism education.

Scenario	Undergraduate Professionalism Education
	Yes	No	p-value
	n = 25	n = 148
Gifts, n (%)	21 (84.0)	132 (89.2)	0.73
Conflict of interest, n (%)	21 (84.0)	135 (90.6)	0.3
Confidentiality, n (%)	21 (84.0)	100 (67.5)	0.16
Impairment, n (%)	21 (84.0)	125 (84.5)	1
Harassment, n (%)	9 (36.0)	68 (46.0)	0.39
Honesty, n (%)	24 (96.0)	127 (85.8)	0.21

Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that directly compares views regarding medical professionalism of EM resident physicians and faculty physicians. In this multicenter study of 176 EM physicians, we found that views regarding medical professionalism of EM resident physicians were superior to those of EM faculty physicians for the confidentiality scenario. A substantial proportion of Japanese EM resident physicians and faculty physicians has not received professionalism education in medical school. However, in our analysis, the effectiveness of medical professionalism training in undergraduate medical education was not confirmed. Our findings are useful for recognizing the necessity of an effective education in medical professionalism in the field of EM.

Tokuda et al. showed that the Japanese physicians were unable to respond acceptably to challenges to professionalism, particularly concerning sexual harassment, honesty, and confidentiality.[12] Similar to the present study, their study showed that the professionalism of resident physicians was superior in terms of the confidentiality scenario. In addition, Kinoshita et al. reported improved responses to the Barry Questionnaire by Japanese physicians.[14] The study by Barry et al.[13] indicates that satisfaction with training in professionalism is significantly related to the amount of relevant coursework. Findings of the present study are consistent with those of the prior studies and extends them by demonstrating the further need for improvement in medical professionalism education for Japanese physicians in terms of confidentiality and sexual harassment.

A substantial proportion of EM physicians failed to provide acceptable responses to the challenges to professionalism in several scenarios. Particularly, more than half of the participants did not respond suitably to the sexual harassment scenario. Two-thirds of the participants selected an unfavorable choice or improper response to the sexual harassment scenario (i.e., ask the resident if the gesture made her uncomfortable). This response might reflect Japan’s unique culture in which the Japanese tend to hide their emotions from others. Many Japanese think that this trait is admirable. Based on this cultural context, many Japanese participants might have thought that the female in the hypothetical case did not express her discomfort through her facial expressions intentionally. Thus, they could have chosen to request confirmation from her to be accurate. Further, frequencies of the best or second-best answers for the scenarios concerning confidentiality were also relatively low (69.9%). As seen in the study by Tokuda in 2009, EM faculty physicians’ responses were inferior to those of the resident physicians for the confidentiality scenario (77.1% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.048). There is a possibility that faculty physicians may portray decreased sensitivity either as a result of increased experiences or burnout. Compared to Tokuda et al.’s study, feedback from EM faculty physicians in the current study regarding responses to gifts scenario showed little difference (87.9% versus 89.8%, P = 0.81). This data might reflect gradual dissemination of professionalism education in Japan. Overall, our findings may reflect a lack of evidenced based professionalism education for EM faculty physicians during their training phase. A growing body of evidence indicates the utilization of guided reflection and formative feedback in professional identity formation.[15, 16] Further, there has been an increased focus on a collaborative learning environment.[16] In addition, there is a strong concern regarding gender gap in academic activities in the Japanese medical field.[17] As a society, we are must work towards reducing gender gap.

This study has several educational implications. First, low performance in the sexual harassment scenario represents a significant problem in the Japanese medical field. One Japanese study reported that 58.6% of female resident physicians had experienced sexual harassment.[18] Harassment and discrimination in medical training is recognized internationally.[19] Furthermore, the emergency department is one of the highest risk areas for abuse and harassment in the hospital setting.[20] In Japan, measures against sexual harassment at work are mandated by the Japanese law.[21] Based on our results, we can confirm that the sexual harassment policy of each emergency department needs to be reviewed and implemented with continuous professional education, strict reporting procedures, and counseling for victims and witnesses. We also need to provide more pre- and postgraduate education on sexual harassment. Second, low performance with regard to confidentiality, especially among EM faculty physicians, is another problem. Compared with results from the previous study by Tokuda et al.[12] 10 years prior, responses by EM faculty physicians to the confidentiality scenario in the present study were lower by 10%. This finding suggests the need for continuous education on professionalism after residency training in addition to rigorous pre-graduate education on professionalism.

Limitations

Our study has several potential limitations. First, we need to confirm the applicability of the Barry Questionnaire to the Japanese context. To this aspect, Tokuda et al. published the validation study of the Barry Questionnaire after engaging in robust processes. However, this previous study did not entirely follow standards of translation and cultural adaptation as recommended in translation guidelines in detail.[12] Second, there is no study that examines whether it is suitable to use the Barry Questionnaire to evaluate EM physicians’ professionalism. However, there has not been a well-validated tool to specifically investigate EM physicians’ professionalism to date.[9] Therefore, we used the Barry Questionnaire for our study. Third, the case scenario approach is not the only method for measuring attitudes about professionalism. It only addresses the cognitive aspects of professionalism. It could be better to combine another method that addresses professional behaviors as well as cognitive aspects.[22] Assessment of professionalism could be performed through subjective, narrative, and personal approaches.[23] Fourth, there is the possibility of bias in the selection of participants in our research. However, the seven hospitals were in geographically diverse areas of Japan. All hospitals were teaching hospitals and tertiary care medical centers. In addition, we intentionally set the balance between community hospitals and academic hospitals to ensure diversity among participants.

Conclusion

Compared with EM resident physicians, EM faculty physicians were less likely to respond acceptably regarding matters of confidentiality. Few EM faculty physicians had been educated about professionalism during their undergraduate years. Furthermore, both EM resident physicians and faculty physicians did not provide acceptable responses regarding harassment. Continuous education about professionalism focused on the prevention of sexual harassment and gender gap is needed in medical education for both EM resident physicians and EM faculty physicians in Japan.

Barry Questionnaire for professionalism.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding gifts and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding conflict of interest and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding confidentiality and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding impairment and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding harassment and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between response to a scenario regarding honesty and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Linear plot graph to show correlation between responses to all scenarios and post graduate year.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-17887

Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shiga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cesario Bianchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Shiga,

Your manuscript was reviewed by 2 experts that found the work interesting. They have, however, some important comments and suggestions to help you improve your manuscript. Please answer all and every comment. Make changes in the the revised version according to the reviewers comments, if you find necessary, and return it as soon as possible.

thank you

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dr. Shiga and colleagues present a novel study evaluating professionalism between emergency medicine residents and faculty physicians in Japan. The topic of the manuscript is timely as professionalism and communication are increasingly recognized as essential to patient care and satisfaction. As the authors have described, the provision of formal education regarding professionalism is not something which was routinely part of medical school curricula in the past as evidenced by the lower percentage of faculty who had received formal training. Interestingly, the residents provided the best or second best answer more frequently than the attending group. The primary strengths of the manuscript include:

1) A timely topic

2) Use of a cross-sectional survey across multiple centers

3) High response rate to the survey

4) Use of the validated Barry survey

The following would enhance the manuscript:

1) The authors note 45% of EM program directors reported 2 or more resident physicians had exhibited unprofessional behavior over the prior year (Ref 10). It would be helpful if the authors provided data regarding whether the residents and faculty in the study had any reports of unprofessional behavior and if there was a correlation between these reports and scores on the Barry survey.

2) Additional discussion regarding whether Barry scores truly relate to quality of care / patient satisfaction would be helpful. Are there clinical evaluations of the participants available to compare with their scores on the Barry survey?

3) Additional discussion regarding why faculty performed worse than residents would be helpful. Is it only a lack of formal training? Is there a decrease in sensitivity with increased experience / burnout?

4) A linear plot correlating scores in each area vs PGY year would be interesting to see how time / experience effect Barry scores in each area

Reviewer #2: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript deals with an important and complex issue in Medical Education: professionalism development among Emergency Medicine physicians. However, there major methodological flaws that authors should take into account when submitting a revised version of the manuscript:

1. The Barry Questionnaire does not measure professional competence, as stated in many parts of the manuscript (ie, Introduction – lines 104, 105; Discussion – line 221). Authors should bear this limitation in mind when stating the study purposes and conclusions.

2. It is not clear whether participants were recruited at the hospitals or at scientific/academic meetings held at specific places (what do authors mean by “biannual EM academic meetings – is that a conference/congress?). How many EM residents and faculty physicians are there in the seven hospitals included in the study? These are important issues that may impair conclusions and generalization of results.

3. Data on the translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Barry Questionnaire to the Japanese cultural is not provided (the study referenced in the Methods section does not provide information on translation and adaptation techniques, reliability and validity of the questionnaire).

4. Results on professionalism education and harassment should be discussed in the light of existing evidence not only from Japan, but also from international studies. What kind of educational interventions work best in developing professionalism among residents and physicians?

5. Previous results on Japanese residents and physicians’ responses to challenging scenarios related to medical professionalism should be revised. The paper from Tokuda et al. (2009) (Reference 12) shows conflicting results concerning the dimensions “Gifts” and “Confidentiality”: faculty physicians performed better than residents in that study sample. What are the possible explanations to such differences?

6. Authors should also bear in mind the possibility of gender bias in their results, particularly concerning participants’ responses on “harassment”. Are there any cultural issues related to gender roles in Japan that may explain the poor performance of residents and faculty physicians in this scenario?

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Yes, although sample size calculation and participation rate (considering the total number of EM residents and physicians among all seven hospitals included in the study) should be clearly stated in the manuscript.

3. Does the manuscript adhere to the PLOS Data Policy?

Data do not seem to be public.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Yes, although professional English editing is necessary.

Minor revisions:

1. Abstract

- Line 58: include number of participating hospitals

- Lines 74 – 75: results do not support this statement, since participants had properly responded to most of the scenarios presented, except for “harassment”.

2. Method:

- Lines 118 – 119: it is not clear how permission to use the questionnaire was granted

- Line 127: was consent written?

3. Discussion:

- Lines 251 – 253: authors should avoid repetition of results and should present a deeper discussion of the study main results, as I mentioned in comments 4 and 6 above (major revisions)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Helena B M S Paro

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

5 Jan 2020

Dear Dr. Cesario Bianchi,

Thank you very much for your ongoing consideration of our manuscript ‘PONE-D-19-17887 Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study’ for publication in the PLOS ONE. Below, we address point-by-point responses to comments.

We remain very enthusiastic about publishing our original scientific article in the Journal and look forward to your editorial decision.

Sincerely,

Takashi Shiga, M.D., M.P.H.

(on behalf of all authors)

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response:

We appreciate the editor’s kind suggestion. Upon submission regarding this revision, we have reviewed the requirements and believe that our manuscript is consistent with the journal requirements.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

Response:

We appreciate editor’s insightful comment. Consent was informed and obtained as written consent. The manuscript was updated accordingly (Page 8, line 134).

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

Response:

The Ethics Committee of the Tokyo Bay Urayasu/Ichikawa Medical Center (approval number: 227) approved this study, including provisions for data sharing. Section 9 ethical considerations mandate that there are restrictions on the availability of data due to the consent agreements for data security as well as the IRB approval, which allow access only to external researchers for research monitoring purposes. A non-author contact for requesting data access is as follows: official-website_bay@jadecom.jp.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

The following would enhance the manuscript:

1) The authors note 45% of EM program directors reported 2 or more resident physicians had exhibited unprofessional behavior over the prior year (Ref 10). It would be helpful if the authors provided data regarding whether the residents and faculty in the study had any reports of unprofessional behavior and if there was a correlation between these reports and scores on the Barry survey.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. It is ideal to have reports of unprofessional behaviors of study participants. However, unfortunately current dataset does not include such information. Because it was an anonymous survey, it is not possible to conduct additional inquiry to the participants.

2) Additional discussion regarding whether Barry scores truly relate to quality of care/ patient satisfaction would be helpful. Are there clinical evaluations of the participants available to compare with their scores on the Barry survey?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. It is ideal to have clinical evaluations of study participants. However, unfortunately current dataset does not include such information. Because it was an anonymous survey, it is not possible to conduct additional inquiry to the participants.

3) Additional discussion regarding why faculty performed worse than residents would be helpful. Is it only a lack of formal training? Is there a decrease in sensitivity with increased experience / burnout?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. It is possible for the faculty physicians to have a decrease in sensitivity with increased experience/burnout. We have added this possibility to our manuscript (Page 19, line 273).

4) A linear plot correlating scores in each area vs PGY year would be interesting to see how time / experience effect Barry scores in each area.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. We have created supporting information files to show the linear plot graphs (S2-S7). In addition, we created a linear plot to show correlation between total number of right answers and PGY (S8). (Page 13, line 210)

Reviewer #2:

1. The Barry Questionnaire does not measure professional competence, as stated in many parts of the manuscript (ie, Introduction – lines 104, 105; Discussion – line 221). Authors should bear this limitation in mind when stating the study purposes and conclusions.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, we tried to avoid the use of expression ‘professional competence’(Page 6 line 106 and Page 17 Line 238).

2-1. It is not clear whether participants were recruited at the hospitals or at scientific/academic meetings held at specific places (what do authors mean by “biannual EM academic meetings – is that a conference/congress?).

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. Out of 176 participants, 66 physicians were recruited at the Emergency Medicine academic conferences for emergency medicine physician/general internist. We have updated the manuscript related to this section accordingly. (Page 8 line 131, page 13 line 206, and table 2)

2-2. How many EM residents and faculty physicians are there in the seven hospitals included in the study? These are important issues that may impair conclusions and generalization of results.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. We have provided the data regarding demographic information of the participating physicians in table 2. (Page 13, line 206)

3. Data on the translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Barry Questionnaire to the Japanese cultural is not provided (the study referenced in the Methods section does not provide information on translation and adaptation techniques, reliability and validity of the questionnaire).

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. The experts of professionalism, Tokuda Y, Barnett PB, Norisue Y, Konishi R, Kudo H, Miyagi S have discussed and assured the content validity as well as cultural adaptation to the Japanese context upon conduction of the study in 2009. (Questionnaire survey for challenging cases of medical professionalism in Japan. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):502-507.) We have updated the manuscript accordingly (Page 9, line 146).

4. Results on professionalism education and harassment should be discussed in the light of existing evidence not only from Japan, but also from international studies. What kind of educational interventions work best in developing professionalism among residents and physicians?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. We have cited articles by Wald et al as well as Goldie to reinforce discussion regarding educational interventions such as reflection, formative feedback and collaborative learning environment in developing professionalism in medical education (Page 19, line 280).

5. Previous results on Japanese residents and physicians’ responses to challenging scenarios related to medical professionalism should be revised. The paper from Tokuda et al. (2009) (Reference 12) shows conflicting results concerning the dimensions “Gifts” and “Confidentiality”: faculty physicians performed better than residents in that study sample. What are the possible explanations to such differences?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. In the previous study by Tokuda et al. (2009) showed better response by faculty physicians in terms of gift (55.0% versus 90.4%, P<0.01). In the current study, the difference was quite small (87.9% versus 89.8%, P=0.81). This data might reflect gradual dissemination of professionalism education in Japan (Page 19, line 274).

In terms of confidentiality, the previous study showed better response by resident physicians in terms of confidentiality (90.0% versus 68.7%, P=0.001). In the current study, we have observed similar but smaller difference (77.1% versus 62.9%, P=0.048). (Page 19, line 271)

6. Authors should also bear in mind the possibility of gender bias in their results, particularly concerning participants’ responses on “harassment”. Are there any cultural issues related to gender roles in Japan that may explain the poor performance of residents and faculty physicians in this scenario?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. As pointed, there is strong concern regarding gender role/gap in the Japanese medical field. We have included an additional sentence quoting relevant article regarding this concern (Page 19, line 282).

7. Sample size

Sample size calculation and participation rate (considering the total number of EM residents and physicians among all seven hospitals included in the study) should be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. Based on the results of previous study by Tokuda et al, we calculated that the observation of 72 physicians in each group would provide 80% power to detect a 20% decrease in the right responses (90% vs 70%) (Page 11, line 177).

Minor revisions:

1. Abstract

- Line 58: include number of participating hospitals

- Lines 74 – 75: results do not support this statement, since participants had properly responded to most of the scenarios presented, except for “harassment”.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments.

-Line 58: we have included the number of participating hospitals in the abstract (Page 3, line 58).

-Lines 74-75: we have changed the expression as ‘Continuous professionalism education emphasizing prevention of sexual harassment and gender gap is needed’ (Page 4, line 74).

2. Method:

- Lines 118 – 119: it is not clear how permission to use the questionnaire was granted

- Line 127: was consent written?

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments.

-Tokuda contacted with ACGME regarding permission of the Barry’s questionnaire and it was granted for translation and use for the previous study (Page 7, line 121).

-Written consent was obtained from participants (Page 8, line 134).

3. Discussion:

- Lines 251 – 253: authors should avoid repetition of results and should present a deeper discussion of the study main results, as I mentioned in comments 4 and 6 above (major revisions)

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. As described above in the sections of comments 4 and 6, we have revised previous lines 251-253 accordingly (Page 19, line 280).

28 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-17887R1

Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shiga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the concerns raised by reviewer#2 and make changes, if you find appropriated, to the revised manuscript. Thank you

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cesario Bianchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Shiga,

Thank you for carefully revising your submission. I need, however, that you address some concerns raised by Reviewer#2 before I make a final decision.

Thank you for your

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: There are still some mistaken expressions to the attitudes towards towards professionalism as measured by the questionnaire ("medical professionalism is used in line 237, eg). General English editing is necessary: there is a typing mistake in line 265 ("facial expressions); "focus ON collaborative learning" (line 278).

The translation and validation process of the questionnaire cited in Ref 12 did not follow rigorous standards of translation and cultural adaptation as recommended in various translation guidelines. Authors should point it as a limitation to the study design.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Helena BMS Paro

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

7 Feb 2020

Reviewer #2:

1) There are still some mistaken expressions to the attitudes towards professionalism as measured by the questionnaire ("medical professionalism is used in line 237, eg).

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, we tried to use ‘views regarding medical professionalism’ (Page 17 line 240).

2) General English editing is necessary: there is a typing mistake in line 265 ("facial expressions); "focus ON collaborative learning" (line 278).

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. We have updated as ‘facial expressions’ (Line 268) and focus on collaborative learning (Line 281) in each section accordingly.

3) The translation and validation process of the questionnaire cited in Ref 12 did not follow rigorous standards of translation and cultural adaptation as recommended in various translation guidelines. Authors should point it as a limitation to the study design.

Response:

We appreciate reviewer’s insightful comments. We have updated this point at the limitation section (Page21 line 307).

Journal requirement:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements.

Response:

We appreciate journal officer’s instructions. We have checked our images through PACE system and uploaded to the submission system accordingly.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Feb 2020

Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study

PONE-D-19-17887R2

Dear Dr. Shiga,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Cesario Bianchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr Shiga,

Thank you for additional and careful revision. I find your manuscript (revision 2) acceptable for publication at this time.

Reviewers' comments:

28 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-17887R2

Comparison of professionalism between emergency medicine resident physicians and faculty physicians: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Shiga:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cesario Bianchi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE