Medical students’ experiences with goals of care discussions and their impact on professional identity formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Goals of care (GoC) discussions occur amongst patients, family members and clinicians in order to establish plans of care and are invaluable aspects of end-of-life care. In previous research, medical learners have reported insufficient training and emotional distress about end-of-life decision making, but most studies have focused on postgraduate trainees and have been quantitative or have evaluated specific educational interventions. None have qualitatively explored medical students' experiences with GoC discussions, their perceptions of associated hidden curricula, and the impacts of these on professional identity formation (PIF), the individualised developmental processes by which laypersons evolve to think, act and feel like, and ultimately become, medical professionals. METHODS: Using purposive sampling at one Canadian medical school, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 medical students to explore their experiences with GoC discussions during their core internal medicine clerkship. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and anonymised. Concurrently with data collection, transcripts were analysed iteratively and inductively using interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitative research approach that allows the rich exploration of subjective experiences. RESULTS: Participants reported minimal support and supervision in conducting GoC discussions, which were experienced as ethically challenging, emotionally powerful encounters exemplifying tensions between formal and hidden curricula. Role modelling and institutional culture were key mechanisms through which hidden curricula were transmitted, subverting formal curricula in doing so and contributing to participants' emotional distress. Participants' coping responses were generally negative and included symptoms of burnout, the pursuit of standardisation, rationalisation, compartmentalisation and the adaptation of previously held, more idealised professional identities. CONCLUSIONS: GoC discussions in this study were often led by inexperienced medical students and impacted negatively on their PIF. Through complex emotional processes, they struggled to reconcile earlier concepts of physician identities with newly developing ones and often reluctantly adopted suboptimal professional behaviours and attitudes. Improved education about GoC discussions is necessary for patient care and may represent concrete and specific opportunities to influence students' PIF positively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".