| Literature DB >> 32178669 |
Michael Page1, Paul Crampton1,2, Rowena Viney1, Antonia Rich1, Ann Griffin3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Across the world, local standards provide doctors with a backbone of professional attitudes that must be embodied across their practice. However, educational approaches to develop attitudes are undermined by the lack of a theoretical framework. Our research explored the ways in which the General Medical Council's (GMC) programme of preventative educational workshops (the Duties of a Doctor programme) attempted to influence doctors' professional attitudes and examined how persuasive communication theory can advance understandings of professionalism education.Entities:
Keywords: Attitude change; Persuasive communication theory; Professionalism
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32178669 PMCID: PMC7077012 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-1993-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Fig. 1Three key components of persuasive communication theory and their constituent elements
Details of the observed professionalism workshop sessions
| Observation site | Cohort | Session no. | No. of attendees | Session topic(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site 1 | Established consultants and Senior trainees | 6th (final) | 8 | Confidentiality |
| Site 2 | Specialty doctors | 3rd | 7 | Raising Concerns, Consent, Duty of Candour and Confidentiality |
| 5th (final) | 3 | Leadership and Management | ||
| Site 3 | Foundation doctors | 3rd | 15 | Complaints, Duty of Candour, Raising Concerns |
| Site 4 | Consultants/Specialty doctors | 1st | 8 | Identifying Learning Needs, Professional Boundaries, Personal Beliefs, Social Media |
| 2nd | 9 | Raising Concerns, Duty of Candour, Leadership and Management | ||
| 3rd | 10 | Confidentiality | ||
| Site 5 | Consultants/Specialty doctors | 3rd | 6 | Identifying, raising and acting on concerns, duty of candour and the role of apologies |
| 5th (final) | 7 | Leadership and Management | ||
| Site 6 | General Practitioners/Consultants | 1st | 5 | Identifying Learning Needs, Staying out of Trouble |
| 1st | 6 | Identifying Learning Needs, Staying out of Trouble | ||
| 2nd | 7 | Confidentiality | ||
| 2nd | 5 | Confidentiality | ||
| Site 7 | New consultants | 1st | 6 | Identifying Learning Needs, Complaints |
| 2nd | 6 | Leadership, Reflection, Confidentiality |
Fig. 2Flow diagram of the research process
Participant demographics for focus group interviews
| Site | Group | Gender | Ethnicity | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | White/ White British | Asian/ Asian British | Other | Not given | |||
| 1 | Established consultants and Senior trainees | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 1 | Established consultants and Senior trainees | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2 | Specialty doctors | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 2 | Specialty doctors (all of whom were international medical graduates) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 3 | Foundation doctors | 8 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 16 |
| 3 | Foundation doctors | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| 4 | Consultant/Specialty doctors | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | Consultants/Specialty doctors | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| 6 | General Practitioners/Consultants | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 7 | New consultants | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Total | 29 | 26 | 28 | 16 | 1 | 10 | ||