Which is the best definition of professionalism as it applies to the health care professional?

In this issue, the members of the Committee on Professionalism of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons have undertaken to define a new position paper on professionalism for the general surgeon.1 As stated by the Committee, it is essential to raise the awareness of professionalism in surgery, to define its importance and to be very aware of what constitutes unprofessional behaviour. It is hoped that this document will serve as a ready reference for students and residents — an appropriate objective, considering the aggressive expansion of education programs that are taking new learners into multiple communities distributed throughout the country. As part of this initiative, it is essential to reflect on the rights and responsibilities of learners and surgeons alike and also to reflect on processes that exist to support concerns that arise.

Why is professionalism so important? The primary rationale for professionalism and collaboration is to promote patient safety. Health care is delivered by teams of professionals who need to communicate well, respecting the principles of honesty, respect for others, confidentiality and responsibility for their actions. Further, the working environment in health care comprises multiple learners, among them fellow physicians, residents and nonphysicians, including students and patients.

How well are physicians doing in terms of professional behaviour? A good way to enquire about this behaviour is to conduct surveys of one's own undergraduate trainees. These trainees have the opportunity to observe perverse interactions such as belittlement or humiliation, threats of physical harm or discrimination arising from sexual, racial and sexual orientation sources. Recent surveys of graduating classes in our own and other schools show that these types of behaviour are observed in the health care environment and include behaviours arising from clinical faculty, nurses, residents and patients themselves. The surprising observation is that the leading numbers of perceived concerns arise from clinical faculty themselves (not necessarily surgeons!). Some forms of unprofessional behaviour may be subtle, such as instances of unintended disrespect for the judgments of peers, breaches of confidentiality and dishonesty in the disclosure of adverse events. A prime example is the electronic mail communication that criticizes another's actions and often invites a chain of equally unprofessional responses — a practice that has likely received stern warnings from medical advisory committees in many hospitals!

What are the rights and responsibilities of learners and surgeons? Learners have the right to be challenged to learn with freedom from abuse, harassment or humiliation. They also have the right to fair, respectful and objective evaluations. At the same time, learners have the responsibility to behave as professionally as their instructors. Faculty surgeons have an essential responsibility to model professional behaviour. They should challenge trainees without abuse and humiliation and respect personal boundaries. As role models, it is essential that faculty surgeons avoid discrediting the reputation of peers and other health professionals. An example of such negative role modelling is the highly critical rounds that disparage care provided at “St. Elsewhere,” particularly when all the local factors that lead to decisions at another site are unknown. These types of interactions need to be identified and resisted by experienced opinion leaders in our departments.

What processes are available for redress if there are concerns and complaints? Codes of professionalism such as the one developed by Bond and colleagues1 are very helpful guidelines that complement those of regulatory colleges and several professional organizations. Many health authorities and hospitals have respectful workplace policies or policies on personal conflict that can apply to surgeons, patients, visitors, fellows, residents and medical staff. These organizations provide mechanisms for any who seek resolution if conflict should arise. Similarly, most academic institutions have developed professional standards guidelines for their faculty and learners. In our own university, all learners and faculty receive a copy that affirms the commitments of professionalism in the domains of honesty, respect for others, confidentiality and responsibility. At their initial appointment, new faculty and students are required to sign and date the copy of these standards that they have received and read. This formulates part of the appointment package. Although such a document does not enforce a rigid code of conduct, it can serve as the basis for discussion because it has been acknowledged by those joining our teams. In addition, it is essential to have a confidential process for receiving complaints. In hospital environments, this task is frequently shouldered by a senior medical director for the hospital. In the educational context, concerns can be taken forward confidentially to the head of an academic unit, for example, the head of the surgical division or the relevant department head. The university may also resource an Associate Dean of Equity, who may take the necessary steps to ensure the health, safety and security of any member of the university community.

In addition to these recognized processes for addressing complaints, it is also helpful for departments to consider educational rounds that involve case studies and scenarios reviewing simulated problems of unprofessional behaviour. Group discussion of these case studies can be most interactive in identifying issues, whether the behaviour led to significant impact on another person, potential power issues that led to harassment and, eventually, solutions. These studies may also identify resources available to mediate disputes.

The hope is that, with the excellent guidelines provided through professional organizations to define professionalism, fewer surgeons will need to confront issues of substandard professional behaviour in themselves and others. Unfortunately, these issues do arise, and several strategies may assist in identifying and resolving conflicts when they arise. First, it is important for everyone to examine his or her rights and responsibilities. Many of these are identified in professional standards documents. Surgeons also need to examine disparity in power, particularly when they hold leadership positions and positions as teachers themselves. It is always helpful to prepare psychologically and professionally to meet difficult situations. This can be done by gathering support and advice from peers and mentors. Communication should be in the presence of trusted colleagues, and the temptation to send inflammatory emails should be resisted! If interactions are difficult, these must be documented objectively and fairly. Above all, it is important to act with integrity and always to hone communication and conflict resolution skills.

In summary, principles of professionalism and collaboration are just as relevant to new generations of surgeons as they have been to those in the past. It is important to pursue a code of professionalism recognizing that there are rights and responsibilities for surgeons as well as for others in health care teams who interact with us on a daily basis. Surveys suggest that forms of unprofessional behaviour are more common than we may care to admit. It is through professional standards documents, respectful workplace policies and critical self-reflection that surgeons can maintain a welcoming environment that is conducive to the best clinical care, education and research.

Garth L. Warnock, MD Coeditor, Canadian Journal of Surgery

Competing interests: None declared.

1. Christian F, Pitt DF, Bond J, et al. Professionalism — connecting the past and the present and a blueprint for the Canadian Association of General Surgeons. Can J Surg 2008;51:88-91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America Institute of Medicine . To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. Nov, [Google Scholar]

2. Derksen DJ, Whelan EM. Closing the health care workforce gap: reforming federal health care workforce policies to meet the needs of the 21st century. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress; 2009. Dec, [Google Scholar]

3. Health care costs: a primer [monograph on the Internet] Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation; 2012. May, [cited 2013 Apr 26]. Available from: www.kff.org/insurance/7670.cfm. [Google Scholar]

4. Lessor C, Lucey C, Egener B, Braddock CH, 3rd, Lines SL, Levinson W. A behavioral and systems view of professionalism. JAMA. 2010 Dec 22;304(24):2732–7. DOI: http://dx/doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Leach DC. Professionalism: the formation of physicians. Am J Bioeth. 2004 Spring;4(2):11–2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/152651604323097619. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Lucey C, Souba W. Perspective: the problem with the problem of professionalism. Acad Med. 2010 Jun;85(6):1018–24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dbe51f. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Stern DT. A framework for measuring professionalism. In: Stern DT, editor. Measuring medical professionalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]

8. Veloski JJ, Fields SK, Boex JR, Blank LL. Measuring professionalism: a review of studies with instruments reported in the literature between 1982 and 2002. Acad Med. 2005 Apr;80(4):366–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200504000-00014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Cohen JJ, Cruess S, Davidson C. Alliance between society and medicine: the public’s stake in medical professionalism. JAMA. 2007 Aug 8;298(6):670–3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.6.670. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Hatala R, et al. Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med. 2000;75(10 Suppl):S6–S11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200010001-00003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Cook IA. Practical professionalism for physicians [PowerPoint on the Internet] Los Angeles CA: David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA: Task Force on Professionalism; 2007. [cited 2013 Apr 22]. Available from: www.medicalprofessionalism.org/downloads/CookProfessionalismPedsFellows070726.pdf. [Google Scholar]

12. Learning objectives for medical student education—guidelines for medical school: report I of the Medical School Objectives Project. Acad Med. 1999 Jan;74(1):13–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199901000-00010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Swing SR. The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(7):648–54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701392903. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. ABIM Foundation, American Board of Internal Medicine. ACP-ASIM Foundation, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. European Federation of Internal Medicine Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):243–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-0001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. O’Sullivan H, McKimm J. Doctor as professional and doctor as leader: same attributes, attitudes and values? Brit J Hosp Med (Lond) 2011 Aug;72(8):463–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Kaldjian LC, Jones EW, Rosenthal GE, Tripp-Reimer T, Hillis SL. An empirically derived taxonomy of factors affecting physicians’ willingness to disclose medical errors. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Sep;21(9):942–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02743142. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Rosner F, Berger JT, Kark P, Potash J, Bennett AJ. Disclosure and prevention of medical errors. Committee on Bioethical Issues of the Medical Society of the State of New York. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 24;160(14):2089–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Earnest MA, Wong SL, Federico SG. Perspective: Physician advocacy: what is it and how do we do it? Acad Med. 2010;85(1):63–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c40d40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. SCPMG & Stakeholder Communications . Member appraisal of physician/provider services: MAPPS guidebook [monograph on the Intranet] Pasadena, CA: Southern California Permanente Medical Group; 2011. Oct, [cited 2013 May 9]. Available from: https://scpmgphysician.kp.org/portal/site/scpmg/ [Password protected]. Click on Education/Practice: MAPPS Guidebook. [Google Scholar]

20. Kanter MH, Abrams KM, Carrasco MR, Spiegel NH, Vogel RS, Coleman KJ. Patient-physician language concordance: a strategy for meeting the needs of Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Perm J. 2009 Fall;13(4):79–84. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7812/TPP/09-056. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Physician incentives, targeted recruitment, and patient matching enhance access to language-concordant physicians for patients with limited English proficiency [monograph on the Internet] Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Health Care Innovations Exchange; last modified 2011 Nov 09 [cited 2011 Dec 29]. Available from: www.innovations.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?id=2792. [Google Scholar]

22. Weisz J. Transforming our environment to support high performance [monograph on the Intranet] Regional Rounds 2007 Jun [cited 2013 Apr 26]. Available from: https://scpmgphysician.kp.org/portal/site/scpmg/. [Password protected].

23. Stern DT, Papadakis M. The developing physicians—becoming a professional. N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 26;355(17):1794–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054783. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Mueller PS. Incorporating professionalism into medical education: the Mayo Clinic experience. Keio J Med. 2009 Sep;58(3):133–43. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2302/kjm.58.133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Ellison E. Being the best at getting better [monograph on the Intranet] Regional Rounds 2012 Jan [cited 2013 Apr 26]. Available from: https://scpmgphysician.kp.org/portal/site/scpmg/ [Password protected].