Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:47:37.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The trainee in difficulty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Robert McGraw  and
Sarita Verma
Robert McGraw*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University
Sarita Verma
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Medical Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart St., Kingston ON K7L 2V7; 3rcm4@post.queensu.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The trainee in difficulty is someone who is either marginal or at risk of failing in his or her clinical performance. Dealing effectively with these learners can pose problems even for seasoned medical educators. This article discusses some of the common mistakes made by educators in dealing with the trainee in difficulty and offers suggestions for a systematic approach. Further, the roles of faculty, including the program director and associate dean’s office, and some of the legal issues are described.

Keywords

Clinical competenceeducationmedicalundergraduategraduatejurisprudence
Type
Education • Éducation
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 205 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2001

References

1.Irby, DM, Milam, S.The legal context for evaluating and dismissing medical students and residents. Acad Med 1989;64:639–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Verma, S, Paterson, M.Evaluating the marginal student: a workshop for clinical faculty. J Allied Health 1998;27:162–6.Google Scholar
3.Short, JP.The importance of strong evaluation standards and procedures in training residents. Acad Med 1993;68:522–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Steinert, Y, Levitt, C.Working with the “problem” resident: guidelines for definition and intervention. Fam Med 1993;25:627–32.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Grams, GD, Longhurst, MF, Whiteside, CBC.The faculty experience with the “troublesome” family practice resident. Fam Med 1992;24:197–200.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Ende, J.Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA 1983; 250:777–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Swan, WS.How to do a superior performance appraisal. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1991.Google Scholar
8.Hunt, DD.Functional and dysfunctional characteristics of the prevailing model of clinical evaluation systems in North American medical schools. Acad Med 1992;67:254–9.Google Scholar
9.Re F and the University of Toronto. Dominion Law Rep 1997; 143:574–6.Google Scholar
10.Re Khan and the University of Ottawa. Ont Rep 1997;34:535–65.Google Scholar
11.Dawson v. University of Ottawa. Ontario Court of Appeal 1994; 72:232–4.Google Scholar
12.Re Polten and Governing Council of the University of Toronto. Dominion Law Rep 1975;59:197–221.Google Scholar
13.Weir, E.Substance abuse among physicians. CMAJ 2000;162:1730.Google ScholarPubMed
14.Myers, MF.Treatment of the mentally ill physican [position paper]. Can J Psychiatry 1997;42(6 suppl).CrossRefGoogle Scholar