Promoting reflection on professionalism: a comparison trial of educational interventions for medical students.

PURPOSE

To determine whether writing, one-on-one interviews with faculty, or a combination of these interventions effectively elicited reflection on professionalism for medical students.

METHOD

The study was a randomized trial conducted in 2001 at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, with fourth-year medical students on a four-week clinical clerkship in emergency medicine. Three interventions were evaluated: the critical incident report (CIR), the CIR followed by a one-on-one interview with a faculty member, and one-on-one interview with no CIR. Quality and quantity of professional issues raised were addressed.

RESULTS

All students (n = 68) agreed to participate; 66 completed the study components. On average, the students addressed significantly more issues of professionalism in their interviews alone than in their CIRs, 15.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.2-13.6) and 7.15 (CI 8.88-5.40) issues respectively (p <.0001). Interviews preceded by CIRs were not significantly different from interviews with no CIR (13.5 versus 15.9 professionalism issues raised, respectively). In-depth explorations, including problem solving and projection to the future, occurred 2.59 times in interviews alone (CI 3.62-1.56) and 0.794 times in CIRs (CI 1.12-0.46) (p <.001). When analyzed as a proportion of total statements, the groups had similar ratios of in-depth statements (11.2% in CIRs and 15.7% in interviews alone).

CONCLUSION

Writing did not significantly affect the quantity or quality of reflection in interviews. One-on-one interviews with a faculty mentor most effectively elicited reflection on professionalism. Future studies should examine how reflective exercises such as those evaluated can be used to promote professional development.