改变政策,促进包容:医学院中的同行体检实践。

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2023.2298865
Allae Abdelrahman, Tegan Whitney, Natalie Mariam Salas, Eileen Barrett, Feranmi O Okanlami
{"title":"改变政策,促进包容:医学院中的同行体检实践。","authors":"Allae Abdelrahman, Tegan Whitney, Natalie Mariam Salas, Eileen Barrett, Feranmi O Okanlami","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2023.2298865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Issue:</i></b> Across the United States, the majority of medical schools teach physical examination using some form of peer physical examination (PPE). The process of being physically exposed in the presence of colleagues can be uncomfortable and cause students distress for myriad reasons ranging from religious and cultural practices to body dysmorphia and previous trauma experiences. This is especially problematic in educational systems which offer no other options, or make PPE a requirement of the curriculum.<b><i>Evidence:</i></b> Across all U.S. medical schools, trainees spent a median of 59 hours teaching physical examination skills. Of this time, 30% is dedicated to PPE practice. Despite this prevalence, there are data that show some students find this uncomfortable, especially women. Literature on best practices around PPE highlights voluntary participation, informed consent, and an available alternative to learning physical xamination skills. These are not uniformly available in all learning environments. There are little data around the impact of PPE on students who have experienced or are experiencing sexual trauma. Authors have drawn conclusions about the potential for harm given the prevalence of sexual mistreatment in US higher education.<b><i>Implications:</i></b> Our medical school policy required students to participate in PPE practice, undressing for the exams wearing only shorts (and a sports bra for women) an and a hospital gown. Students who could not participate in this practice for reasons ranging from mobility to religious beliefs had to seek individual formal accommodations to be exempt, putting the onus of change on potentially vulnerable individuals. We evaluated the policy around PPE, and concluded that the school's requirements could be harmful and isolating, as they required students to disclose their personal vulnerabilities while seeking exemptions from being examined by peers. At our institution, a group of students instead advocated for the school to review the policy and create a PPE procedure that was safer and more inclusive while supporting student learning. Our experience emphasized the potential for students to advocate for change, while also highlighting the need for greater research in the field of trauma-informed curricular design for medical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Changing Policy for Inclusion: Peer-to-Peer Physical Exam Practice in Medical School.\",\"authors\":\"Allae Abdelrahman, Tegan Whitney, Natalie Mariam Salas, Eileen Barrett, Feranmi O Okanlami\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10401334.2023.2298865\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Issue:</i></b> Across the United States, the majority of medical schools teach physical examination using some form of peer physical examination (PPE). The process of being physically exposed in the presence of colleagues can be uncomfortable and cause students distress for myriad reasons ranging from religious and cultural practices to body dysmorphia and previous trauma experiences. This is especially problematic in educational systems which offer no other options, or make PPE a requirement of the curriculum.<b><i>Evidence:</i></b> Across all U.S. medical schools, trainees spent a median of 59 hours teaching physical examination skills. Of this time, 30% is dedicated to PPE practice. Despite this prevalence, there are data that show some students find this uncomfortable, especially women. Literature on best practices around PPE highlights voluntary participation, informed consent, and an available alternative to learning physical xamination skills. These are not uniformly available in all learning environments. There are little data around the impact of PPE on students who have experienced or are experiencing sexual trauma. Authors have drawn conclusions about the potential for harm given the prevalence of sexual mistreatment in US higher education.<b><i>Implications:</i></b> Our medical school policy required students to participate in PPE practice, undressing for the exams wearing only shorts (and a sports bra for women) an and a hospital gown. Students who could not participate in this practice for reasons ranging from mobility to religious beliefs had to seek individual formal accommodations to be exempt, putting the onus of change on potentially vulnerable individuals. We evaluated the policy around PPE, and concluded that the school's requirements could be harmful and isolating, as they required students to disclose their personal vulnerabilities while seeking exemptions from being examined by peers. At our institution, a group of students instead advocated for the school to review the policy and create a PPE procedure that was safer and more inclusive while supporting student learning. Our experience emphasized the potential for students to advocate for change, while also highlighting the need for greater research in the field of trauma-informed curricular design for medical education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teaching and Learning in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teaching and Learning in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2298865\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2298865","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题:在美国,大多数医学院在教授体格检查时都采用某种形式的同伴体格检查 (PPE)。由于宗教和文化习俗、身体畸形和以前的创伤经历等各种原因,在同事面前暴露身体的过程可能会让学生感到不舒服,并造成困扰。在没有其他选择或将个人防护设备作为课程要求的教育系统中,这种问题尤为突出:证据:在美国所有医学院校中,受训人员教授体格检查技能的时间中位数为 59 小时。其中 30% 的时间用于 PPE 实践。尽管这种情况普遍存在,但有数据显示,一些学生(尤其是女生)对此感到不舒服。有关个人防护设备最佳实践的文献强调了自愿参与、知情同意和学习体格检查技能的替代方法。但并不是所有的学习环境都有这些措施。关于个人防护设备对经历过或正在经历性创伤的学生的影响的数据很少。鉴于性虐待在美国高等教育中的普遍性,作者们得出了可能造成伤害的结论:我们医学院的政策要求学生参加个人防护实践,考试时只穿短裤(女生只穿运动胸罩)和病号服。由于行动不便或宗教信仰等原因而无法参加这种练习的学生,必须寻求个人正式豁免,这就把改变的责任推给了潜在的弱势群体。我们对有关个人防护设备的政策进行了评估,得出的结论是,学校的要求可能是有害和孤立的,因为它们要求学生在寻求豁免接受同伴检查的同时,披露自己的个人弱点。在我们学校,一群学生主张学校重新审查政策,制定一个更安全、更具包容性的个人防护设备程序,同时支持学生的学习。我们的经验强调了学生倡导变革的潜力,同时也凸显了在医学教育的创伤知情课程设计领域开展更多研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Changing Policy for Inclusion: Peer-to-Peer Physical Exam Practice in Medical School.

Issue: Across the United States, the majority of medical schools teach physical examination using some form of peer physical examination (PPE). The process of being physically exposed in the presence of colleagues can be uncomfortable and cause students distress for myriad reasons ranging from religious and cultural practices to body dysmorphia and previous trauma experiences. This is especially problematic in educational systems which offer no other options, or make PPE a requirement of the curriculum.Evidence: Across all U.S. medical schools, trainees spent a median of 59 hours teaching physical examination skills. Of this time, 30% is dedicated to PPE practice. Despite this prevalence, there are data that show some students find this uncomfortable, especially women. Literature on best practices around PPE highlights voluntary participation, informed consent, and an available alternative to learning physical xamination skills. These are not uniformly available in all learning environments. There are little data around the impact of PPE on students who have experienced or are experiencing sexual trauma. Authors have drawn conclusions about the potential for harm given the prevalence of sexual mistreatment in US higher education.Implications: Our medical school policy required students to participate in PPE practice, undressing for the exams wearing only shorts (and a sports bra for women) an and a hospital gown. Students who could not participate in this practice for reasons ranging from mobility to religious beliefs had to seek individual formal accommodations to be exempt, putting the onus of change on potentially vulnerable individuals. We evaluated the policy around PPE, and concluded that the school's requirements could be harmful and isolating, as they required students to disclose their personal vulnerabilities while seeking exemptions from being examined by peers. At our institution, a group of students instead advocated for the school to review the policy and create a PPE procedure that was safer and more inclusive while supporting student learning. Our experience emphasized the potential for students to advocate for change, while also highlighting the need for greater research in the field of trauma-informed curricular design for medical education.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
期刊最新文献
Psychometric properties of the Ethiopian national licensing exam in medicine: an analysis of multiple-choice questions using classical test theory. Disability Education for Health Personnel and Impact on Health Outcomes for Persons with Autism: A Scoping Review. Examining Scientific Inquiry of Queerness in Medical Education: A Queer Reading. "I have established this support network": How Chosen Kin Support Women Medical Students During their First Two Years in Medical School. Applying the Panarchy Framework to Examining Post-Pandemic Adaptation in the Undergraduate Medical Education Environment: A Qualitative Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1