Commentary by Jack Truten, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities at Penn State College of Medicine at Hershey; Chair of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia’s Section on Medicine and the Arts; consultant in medical ethics and professionalism
Background
I’ve made education in medical professionalism my business in recent years. Frequently, I hear and read that there’s a crisis in medical professionalism, that trust in doctors has eroded because medical technology and other interventions or intrusions have insinuated themselves into the sacred space between doctor and patient and, further, that doctors are seen to have been complicit in this infidelity. My purpose in this entry is not to investigate this claim—nor to refute or defend it—but to describe one way to address it by offering a retrospective account of the first-year experience of setting up a medical humanities-based program in professionalism principally for house staff in a major academic medical center—a program that was at its inception more start-up than pilot and is now more toddler than infant.
A few years ago, during my Fellowship experience in Clinical Ethics and Medical Humanities at a community academic hospital, I found that as I participated in clinical rounds and rotations, education modules and ethics consults, my presence was like that of an unwitting Trojan horse— singular, but unthreatening enough to attract unguarded disclosures from clinicians of all stripes about the tribulations and satisfactions of clinical practice. Most often, the tales I heard were of the crushing weight of workplace stress and the burnout and compassion fatigue it engenders. I also heard tales of less than ideal care-team cohesion and inter-professional tensions. It occurred to me that professional conduct is most likely to be found in those clinicians who have a strong and well-defined professional identity and that self-care is an important constituent component of such an identity. I had already received foundational training in Narrative Medicine at Columbia University and so decided to implement a twice-monthly on-site, in-unit program in “Narrative Pediatrics” for an inter-disciplinary group of NICU and PICU staff. Now supported by unit leadership and some modest funding, this program is still in place and working to diminish some of the suffering and struggles that are captured in the narratives produced and exchanged.
A little over a year a year ago, I gave a talk at the University of Pennsylvania, describing this Narrative Pediatrics program. Afterwards, I spoke with one of the Vice Deans in the School of Medicine there and we reached an agreement to develop together a “Narrative Professionalism” initiative for house-staff at Penn, convinced that a small group approach to professionalism education would be more effective than large, didactic lectures. Start-up challenges were predictable enough—buy-in from faculty and departmental leaders, finding time in an already densely packed GME curriculum, and securing even modest funding. Working with only a few residency programs at the beginning of the year, our initiative incrementally expanded to the point where now, almost all clinical departments have taken part to varying extents, with some residency programs finding time to incorporate only two one-hour Narrative Professionalism sessions for residents per year into existing conference time, while other programs have signed up for three or four sessions per year, some featuring ninety-minute sessions. Growing interest in this program, meanwhile has led to the establishment of separate Narrative Professionalism sessions for fellows, for researchers and in seven individual ICU’s for interdisciplinary groups. Currently under consideration is the establishment next year of similar sessions for new attending physicians and for inter-service or inter-departmental groups.
The program at University of Pennsylvania
The approach we have devised for house-staff education in professionalism begins first with a training session for the Program Director and other faculty interested in co-facilitating these Narrative Professionalism resident groups. In this one-hour introductory session, I explain the central concepts of Narrative Medicine and then enact for this faculty gathering a dress rehearsal of a typical residents’ group where for the first ten minutes of the session, participants are asked to write informally about an episode from their clinical experience that somehow captures a professional predicament or success. For the remainder of the session, participants are asked to read these short narratives aloud, giving others an opportunity to listen and collectively to interpret the significance of what they heard. Resident sessions themselves are then co-facilitated by a trained faculty member and by me or one of my associates. Writing assignments are carefully and progressively sequenced such that in the first meeting, the question is Write about an occasion when you witnessed medical professionalism at its best—or, alternatively, at less than its best …and in the second, Write about an occasion when your own professional identity took a hit—either in your own eyes, or those of someone else—or, alternatively, an occasion when it was strengthened or affirmed. Subsequent sessions can address specialty-specific professionalism concerns. Certain rules of engagement apply in these groups and are stated explicitly each time: that this is a safe and confidential context for full and open disclosure, with no outside revisitations or recriminations and that in these narrative exchanges, we’re aiming not so much for solutions to particular problems but for shared insight into the constituent components of professionalism and its conduct.
Aspects of the devised approach that appear to work well are, first, the presence of a faculty facilitator who is willing to write and share his or her own narrative of professional challenge or resiliency, the presence of a neutral second facilitator with narratological expertise, and the applied principles of adult learning that invite participants to bring to the table their own understanding and experiences of the scope and nature of professionalism. Some themes and insights typically generated by residents’ narratives include: the fragility of one’s professional reputation, the pressure of high institutional expectations and standards, inter-professional/intra-professional/inter-service tensions, emotional engagement with/detachment from patients and families, and the realization that professional behavior, like ethical decision-making, is often situation-specific and context-dependent. Expressed satisfactions, meanwhile, typically refer to a sense of professional peer-group belonging, to inspiring mentors, and to the overall privilege of practice. Other dividends of the Narrative Professionalism approach are that the acts of writing and interpretation automatically enact reflective practice and that residents can develop a certain narrative competence that can, in turn, inform patient interactions as well as diagnostic and treatment decisions.
The response
Professionalism in the practice of medicine is notoriously difficult to measure and our participant evaluation data are at this point still being gathered. Resident evaluations of these Narrative Professionalism sessions from the beginning have been overwhelmingly positive, with characteristic requests for more time and greater frequency of sessions. The three core questions on the standard evaluation form ask participants to assess first, to what extent this narrative exchange experience was beneficial to their personal sense of professional well-being/resiliency, second, to what extent this narrative exchange experience was beneficial to their professional sense of team cohesion/affiliation and third, to what extent this narrative exchange experience will enhance their ability to deliver high quality care and treatment for patients and families. In preparation for a second, more established year of the Narrative Professionalism program at Penn, I plan to attend the forthcoming inaugural Advanced Narrative Medicine training workshop at Columbia University where refining instruments of program assessment and measurement will be a focused priority. With the ACGME’s (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) designation of professionalism as one of the six general competencies that residency programs are required to teach, much remains to be attempted and accomplished in professionalism education: Narrative Professionalism is one efficient, cost-effective, and rigorous medical humanities approach that takes fully and properly into account the artistry of professional conduct in the medical workplace.
译文:
叙事医学在医疗道德建设上的首创精神
评论来自:杰克·崔特恩,赫尔希宾州大学医学院客座助理教授,哲学博士
赫尔希地区宾夕法尼亚州立大学医学院;医学和人文学院费城分院院长;医疗职业道德和专业素养顾问。
背景
近些年,我在自己的业务上得到了医学专业素养的教育。我经常听到或读到关于医师职业道德危机的观点,由于医疗技术和其他干扰因素介入医生和患者之间的神圣关系,导致对医生的信任开始减弱,甚至,医生被认为是这种不诚信的谋划者。我这篇引言意图不在调查这种言论的真实性---也不是企图反驳或辩护该观点—而是想通过回顾当初针对住院医师打造的一个以医学人文为主的计划(该计划在其初期只不过是个试点,经过一年的发展,现在已脱离婴儿期,稍走向成熟)来说明一种表达情绪增强交流的方式。
几年前,我在一家社区医院公开学术讨论会上参与《临床伦理》和医学人文学科的研究过程中,我参加了临床巡视和轮班,教学模块和道德咨询,我发现我的言论就像不明智的木马计---言论很奇异,但又不具备足够的迫力来吸引那些临床医生毫无保留地说出各种各样关于临床实践的喜与悲。大多数时候,我听到的是沉重的工作压力和让人筋疲力尽的工作以及由此引起的同情心丧失,我还听到差强人意的团队精神和团队内的紧张气氛。这让我想起,专业操守只有在那些有强烈和明确的职业认同的医务工作者身上才能充分体现,而且自我调节是这种认同感的重要组成部分。我已经在哥伦比亚大学叙事医学课程上接受了基本的培训,于是决定每月两次以每个科室为单位就地开展的儿科叙事座谈会计划,计划针对新生儿重症监护室医生和儿童重症监护室医生两个跨专业团队。由于受科室领导和些许资金的支持,这个计划仍然在进行,致力于降低团队里自我表达和相互交流过程中出现的痛苦和挣扎的情绪。
一年多一点以前,我在宾夕法尼亚大学演讲,描述了这个儿科叙事座谈会计划。之后,我和那里医学院的一个副院长谈论此事,我们在共同发展叙事医学的观点上达成一致,提出在宾夕法尼亚大学住院医生中开展医生职业操守座谈,相信在一小群人中进行职业操守教育会比大面积开展教条式的演讲更为高效。
一开始就可以预见这是项颇具挑战性的工作---动员全体医生以及部门领导人加入,在已经非常密集的GME课程里再挤时间,保障那微薄的资金的有效利用。这年年初,我们还只和实习科室开展一些活动,我们的倡议逐步扩大到现在的规模,几乎所有的临床部门都有不同程度的参与。有些住院医生计划部门会将每年仅两次,每次一小时的职业道德座谈和现有的会议时间结合,其他计划部门的已经签订每年进行三到四个周期的坐谈,有些坐谈长达90分钟。这个活动引起了越来越大的兴趣,其间推动了为学员,研究人员和个人重症监护病房的7个团队建立的独立专业操守坐谈活动。目前我们正在考虑明年将为新的内科主治医生和实习医生以及跨部门的团队建设类似的坐谈疗程。
坐谈计划在美国宾夕法尼亚大学的实施
我们为住院医生设计的专业素养教育首先以针对计划部主任和其他对互助减压的实习医生团队感兴趣的人。在这一小时的引导过程中,我先解释叙述医学的核心理念,然后在头十分钟内为这组集合在一起的员工制定一个独特的实习医生彩排活动,住院医生们要求随意写下一段临床经历,内容要在专业内,并展示出一些成功或者尴尬的片段。座谈会其他的时间里,参与者被要求大声念出这些短片段,让别人能听到并且共同地探讨他们对听到的事情的看法。然后,通过一个经过训练的成员的引导,以及我或者我的同事的指导,实习医生团队内部就开始互助减轻压力和困扰。写作的分配是仔细而逐渐有序的进行的,在首轮会议里,问题是关于当你目睹了一件遵守医疗道德的事---或者,一件也许没有那么遵守的事……第二轮,写下你自己的专业信仰受挫的场景---不管是在你眼里还是在其他人眼里看来-----或者,也许是专业信仰更坚定或者明确的时候。之后的座谈会可以专门解决大家具体关注的职业道德问题。这些团队会有一些规则,每次开会前都会仔细说明:这是个会议以信任为基础,以保证参与的住院医生们完全公开自己的秘密,不会有外界参与记录或者批评指责,在这些交流过程中,我们不是将目标放在解决具体问题上,而是意图就医生职业道德和行为这一话题的各部分细节进行深刻的交流。计划进行中效果看起来比较好的一些方面是,首先,开始有引导者愿意写下并与其他人分享自己职业上的困难和委屈,第二个中立的引导者和叙事专家一起,连同已有并适用成人学习的原则能让参与者提出他们自己关于职业道德性质和范围的理解和相关经验。参与者提出的一些主题和见解典型存在于以下几点:个人职业声誉的脆弱性,公共机构过高的期待和要求,职业内/职业间/和服务内的紧张压力,和患者及其家庭感情上的接触和剥离,意识到专业操守(象合乎道德的抉择)经常是因时因事而变的。同时,满意的情绪主要表现在:对专业团队归属感、鼓舞人心的前辈、和业务的全面授权的认同。叙事职业道德座谈取得的其他成果是,写下感想和自觉说出的行为,并通过反馈行为,使得住院医生们能够增加某种表达技能,这种技能反过来可以促进医生和病人的互动以及制定诊断和治疗方法。

反响
职业道德的评定在医学实践中由于其不可测量性而成为一个老大难的问题,并且我们参与者的评估数据此刻仍在收集过程中。这些座谈会上的住院医生从一开始就盲目乐观,特别要求希望参与更多和规模更大的座谈学期,标准评价表要求参与者回答的三个主要问题之一就是:这种交流经验的座谈在多大程度上会对参与者个人职业操守意识进行改观;第二就是,这种座谈交流在多大程度上会有益于他们的团队专业精神和凝聚力,第三点,这种座谈交流能在多大程度上提高医师给病人和病人家属的高质量服务。在准备宾夕法尼亚大学更成熟的第二年的职业道德座谈交流会过程中,我打算参与即将在哥伦比亚大学开展的首届高等医学培训研讨会,一个重点项目就是改善座谈方法评估体系。尽管ACGME(毕业后医学教育认证委员会)将职业道德座谈认定为六个一般能力指标之一,许多方面我们还要进行尝试并完善职业道德教育培训:职业道德叙事座谈会是以一个高效、划算和严格的医学人文方式,充分适当考虑到专业操守在医疗工作上的人文特性。