The Characteristics of Medical Professionalism Preferred by the Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Professionalism is a crucial component of the medical profession. Patients have various expectations, including knowledge, skills, communication, ethics, and personality. However, there is still a lack of in-depth studies in Thailand. The objectives of this research were: 1) to investigate the priorities of professional attributes that patients value, 2) to apply the research findings to the development of medical curricula, and 3) to design a curriculum that aligns with professional standards.
Design: A cross sectional analytical study
Methods: Four hundred outpatients from the Police General Hospital responded to a questionnaire, which was divided into two sections. The first section collected general demographic data, while the second section used a 5-point Likert scale to assess physicians’ attributes in four areas: knowledge, skills, ethics, personality, and communication.
Results: Patients placed the highest importance on the physician’s personality (mean score: 4.3687), followed by ethics (4.2519), communication (4.2456), and knowledge/skills (4.2362). ANOVA analysis showed that personality was significantly important (p < 0.05), while other areas showed no significant differences.
Conclusion: Patients prioritize a physician’s personality the most, followed by ethics, communication, and knowledge/skills, respectively. This reflects the necessity for development in this area within medical training curricula. The findings of this research can be used as a guideline for curriculum developers or those involved in the design of undergraduate medical programs that emphasize professionalism and effectively meet patients’ needs.
Keywords: professional attributes, patient satisfaction, physician, tertiary care hospital
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The content and information in articles published in the PCFM journal are solely the opinions and responsibilities of the authors. The journal's editorial board does not necessarily agree with or share any responsibility for them.
All articles, information, content, images, etc., published in the PCFM journal are the copyright of the PCFM journal. If any individual or organization wishes to reproduce, distribute, or use any part or the entirety of the content, they must obtain written permission from the PCFM journal beforehand.
References
Hafferty FW, Castellani B. The increasing complexities of professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:288-301.
Hilton SR, Southgate LJ, Professionalism in medicine: A review of the literature. Med Educ. 2007;41: 21-28.
Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y, The professional identity of medical students: A vital consideration for medical education. Med Teach. 2016;38:455-61.
Byszewski A, Gill JS, Lochnan H. Socialization to professionalism in medical schools: a Canadian experience. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:204..
O’Sullivan H, van Mook WN, Fewtrell R, Wass V. Integrating professionalism into the curriculum: AMEE Guide No. 61. Med Teach. 2012;34(2):e64-e77.
Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Hatala R, McNaughton N, Frohna A, Hodges B, Lingard L, Stern D. Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med. 2000;75(10 Suppl):S6-S11.
Epstein RM, Hundert EM, Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287:226-35.
Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, Knettler TR, Rattner SL, Stern DT, Veloski JJ, Hodgson CS. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673-82.
Ginsburg S, Stern DT, The role of professionalism in medical education. Acad Med. 2004;79:1-5.
Papadakis M.A., et al. The educational impact of disciplinary action by medical boards. Acad Med. 2005;80:542-7.
Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D, et al. The teaching of professionalism in medical education: a global perspective. Med Teach. 2014;36(4):287-292.
Arnold L, Assessing professional behavior: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med. 2002;77: 502-15.
Jha V, Bekker HL, Duffy SR, Roberts TE. A systematic review of studies assessing and facilitating attitudes towards professionalism in medicine. Med Educ. 2007;41:822-9.
van Mook WN KA, van Luijk SJ, O’Sullivan HM, Wass V, Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP, et al. The concepts of professionalism and professional behaviour: Conflicts in both definition and learning outcomes. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20:e85-e89.
Chen HP, Chen HL, A framework for assessing medical professionalism: A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:1-12.
Ginsburg S., The role of the medical educator in promoting professionalism. Acad. Med. 2006;81:516-20.
Cruess RL, Cruess SR. Professionalism education: An emerging priority. Med Teach. 2008;30:469-70.
Chandratilake M, McAleer S, Professionalism and professionalism in medical education: A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:1-10.
แพทยสภา. แนวทางการฝึกอบรมแพทย์เพื่อเพิ่มคุณภาพและศักยภาพในการปฏิบัติงาน. กรุงเทพฯ: แพทยสภาไทย; 2566.
Frank JR, Snell L, Sherbino J, editors. CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015.
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Common Program Requirements. Chicago: ACGME; 2023.
กองสาธารณสุขและสิ่งแวดล้อม. การพัฒนาคุณลักษณะของแพทย์ที่ผู้ป่วยต้องการ: รายงานการวิจัย. กรุงเทพฯ: กองสาธารณสุขและสิ่งแวดล้อม; 2566.
Rees CE, Monrouxe LV. Professionalism and the role of assessment. Med Teach. 2011;33:232-9.
