Background: Though graduate medical education (GME) residency training provides positive experiences for many trainees, it may also result in major stressors and negative experiences, particularly for those requiring remediation. Residents requiring remediation may experience feelings of dismay, shame and guilt that can negatively affect their training, self-efficacy and their medical careers. Power differentials between educators and residents may set the stage for epistemic injustice, which is injustice resulting from the silencing or dismissing a speaker based on identity prejudice. This can lead to decreased willingness of trainees to engage with learning. There is a paucity of literature that explores GME experiences of remediation from the resident perspective.
Objective: To synthesise the narratives of physician experiences of remediation during residency through the lens of epistemic injustice.
Methods: Between January and July 2022, we interviewed US physicians who self-identified as having experienced remediation during residency. They shared events that led to remediation, personal perspectives and emotions about the process and resulting outcomes. Interviews were analysed using narrative analysis with attention to instances of epistemic injustice.
Results: We interviewed 10 participants from diverse backgrounds, specialties and institutions. All participants described contextual factors that likely contributed to their remediation: (1) previous academic difficulty/nontraditional path into medicine, (2) medical disability or (3) minoritised race, gender or sexual identity. Participants felt that these backgrounds made them more vulnerable in their programmes despite attempts to express their needs. Participants reported instances of deflated credibility and epistemic injustices with important effects.
Conclusions: Participant narratives highlighted that deep power and epistemic imbalances between learners and educators can imperil GME trainees' psychological safety, resulting in instances of professional and personal harm. Our study suggests applying an existing framework to help programme directors (PDs) approach remediation with epistemic humility.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.15295 | DOI Listing |
Philos Stud
February 2024
Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
It is well-established that algorithms can be instruments of injustice. It is less frequently discussed, however, how current modes of AI deployment often make the very discovery of injustice difficult, if not impossible. In this article, we focus on the effects of algorithmic profiling on epistemic agency.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Ethics
January 2025
Rehabilitation Medicine, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
When the clinician and patient are unable to reconcile differences over treatment, does this mean the latter lacks capacity to decide in such matters? Wellesley analyse the legal judgements in the case of Ms Sudiksha Thirumalesh where, on the particulars, the Court of Protection answered yes, only for the Court of Appeal to disagree. The authors highlight concerns about using isolated false belief as an indicator of incapacity and advise that such matters may be better resolved by greater discussion of the benefits and burdens of treatment, alongside consideration of their costs. Here, I suggest that a disability perspective is also helpful to such cases, recognising that this was a disagreement from which the patient couldn't walk away.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPhilos Med
October 2024
Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Department of Preclinical Medicine, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Bioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
BMC Med Ethics
January 2025
Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health, University of Otago, Wellington, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Background: Being able to measure informed choice represents a mechanism for service evaluation to monitor whether informed choice is achieved in practice. Approaches to measuring informed choice to date have been based in the biomedical hegemony. Overlooked is the effect of epistemic positioning, that is, how people are positioned as credible knowers in relation to knowledge tested as being relevant for informed choice.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Bioeth Inq
January 2025
Institut für Philosophie, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, 60629, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!