It takes (at least) two to tango: comparing the affordances of two learner mistreatment reporting mechanisms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.80941Abstract
Background: The affordances, or characteristics, of learner mistreatment reporting mechanisms can shape the information elicited from these mechanisms, which has an impact on how institutions understand the scope and nature of learner mistreatment. This study compares whether and how the affordances of two mistreatment reporting mechanisms elicit different information about learner mistreatment at a single institution.
Methods: We conducted an interpretive content analysis of reports submitted using two mechanisms, one that elicits reports through end-of-rotation evaluations and one through a voluntary web-based system, between July 2015 and December 2021. We extracted the metadata from reports and applied a coding framework informed by the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to the narrative descriptions in reports. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and the chi-square test on SPSS v.27.
Results: We collected 90 elicited reports and 240 voluntary reports of mistreatment. Similar types of mistreatment were reported through each mechanism, but disrespectful behaviour and bias and discrimination were reported significantly more in voluntary reports. Elicited reports most frequently included incidents of learner mistreatment in clinical settings, whereas voluntary reports included incidents from a wide variety of settings and people or were issues other than mistreatment.
Discussion: Utilizing multiple learner mistreatment reporting mechanisms with different affordances can mitigate the limitations of a single mechanism, help identify a more nuanced understanding of learner mistreatment, and increase reporters’ choices for how and when to report mistreatment. Increased information allows an institution to address specific incidents and develop targeted, preventive educational activities and faculty development.
Downloads
References
1. Mazer LM, Bereknyei Merrell S, Hasty BN, Stave C, Lau JN. Assessment of programs aimed to decrease or prevent mistreatment of medical trainees. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180870. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0870
2. Walvoord EC, Howenstine MS, Allen BL, et al. Engaging all stakeholders to create a trusted, data-driven, process improvement approach to addressing learner mistreatment. Teach Learn Med. 2024;36(1):61-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2122979
3. Fried JM, Vermillion M, Parker NH, Uijtdehaage S. Eradicating medical student mistreatment: a longitudinal study of one institution’s efforts. Acad Med. 2012;87(9):1191-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182625408
4. Leitman IM, Muller D, Miller S, et al. Implementation of an online reporting system to identify unprofessional behaviors and mistreatment directed at trainees at an academic medical center. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(12):e2244661. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44661
5. Bell A, Cavanagh A, Connelly CE, Walsh A, Vanstone M. Why do few medical students report their experiences of mistreatment to administration? Med Educ. 2021;55(4):462-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14395
6. Sahiti Q, Shearer C, Thomson C, Sutherland L, Bowes D. Addressing medical resident mistreatment: a resident-centred approach. Med Teach. 2024;46(6):769-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2279903
7. Vanstone M, Cavanagh A, Molinaro M, et al. How medical learners and educators decide what counts as mistreatment: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2023;57(10):910-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15065
8. Williams-Karnesky RL, Russell JC, Wang ML. More than aligning perception: impact of an educational intervention on medical student mistreatment reporting. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;231(1):112-21.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.03.029
9. Gan R, Snell L. When the learning environment is suboptimal: exploring medical students’ perceptions of “mistreatment.” Acad Med. 2014;89(4):608-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000172
10. Fleit HB, Iuli RJ, Fischel JE, Lu WH, Chandran L. A model of influences on the clinical learning environment: the case for change at one US medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0900-9
11. Smith-Coggins R, Prober CG, Wakefield K, Farias R. Zero tolerance: implementation and evaluation of the Stanford medical student mistreatment prevention program. Acad Psychiatry. 2017;41:195-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-016-0523-1
12. Gibson,JJ. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1966.
13. Norman DA. The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
14. Evans SK, Pearce KE, Vitak J, Treem JW. Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2017;22(1):35-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
15. Davis JL, Chouinard JB. Theorizing affordances: from request to refuse. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2016;36(4):241-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944
16. Drisko JW, Maschi T. Interpretive content analysis (pp. 57-80). In: Content Analysis. Oxford University Press, USA; 2016.
17. Gillespie A, Reader TW. The healthcare complaints analysis tool: development and reliability testing of a method for service monitoring and organisational learning. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):937-46. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004596
18. London School of Economics and Political Science. The healthcare complaints analysis tool. v 3. Published 2015. Available from https://healthcarecomplaintsanalysis.com/. [Accessed Apr 4, 2024].
19. Crosbie C, McDougall A, Pangli H, Abu-Laban RB, Calder LA. College complaints against resident physicians in Canada: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 2013 to 2017. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(1):E35-E42. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210026
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Christen Rachul, Jesse Garber, Joanne Hamilton, Anitra Squires, Nancy Porhownik, Jackie Gruber, Eric Jacobsohn
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
