Reclaiming physician identity: It’s time to integrate ‘Doctor as Person’ into the CanMEDS framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) adopted the CanMEDS framework with seven key roles: medical expert, communicator, collaborator, health advocate, manager, professional, and scholar. For many years, CanMEDS has been recognized around the world for defining what patients need from their physicians. From the start, the RCPSC acknowledged that these roles should evolve over time to continue to meet patient and societal needs (updates in 2005 & 2015). We propose that an 8th role is now needed in the framework: “Doctor as Person”. Interestingly, this role was present in the foundational work through the Educating Future Physicians for Ontario (EFPO) project that the RCPSC drew upon in creating CanMEDS more than 20 years ago. Given today’s challenges of providing care in an increasingly stressed Canadian healthcare system, physicians are struggling more than ever with health and wellness, burnout, and the deterioration of the clinical environment. From the patient perspective, there is growing concern that physician-patient interactions are becoming increasingly impersonal and decreasingly patient-centered. The crack emerging in the foundation of physician identity needs to be remedied. We need to pay close attention to how we define ourselves as physicians, by better identifying the competencies required to navigate the personal and professional challenges we face. Only in so doing can we ward off the threat that exists in losing authentic human to human care interactions. Formalizing Doctor as Person as an 8th role in the CanMEDS framework will help patients and physicians create the space to have essential conversations about the humanity of medical care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".