Competent to provide compassionate care? A critical discourse analysis of accreditation standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical school accreditation is recognised internationally as an important quality control process for programmes that lead to the Medical Doctor (MD) degree. Accreditation standards govern the accreditation process which in turn drives educational objectives. Given the power of these standards to shape what becomes valued in the curricula, it is therefore imperative to ensure that core values and ideals of the profession are meaningfully incorporated. As the provision of compassionate care has long been a central medical value, this value should be clearly articulated in MD programme accreditation standards. METHODS: We conducted a Critical Discourse Analysis of compassionate care within Undergraduate Medical Education (UME) Accreditation Standards governing North American medical schools since 1957. We explored how and to what extent the written language of the accreditation standards incorporated compassionate care. RESULTS: References to compassionate care in the UME Accreditation Standards were few and far between. Historically, a statement of 'The Objectives of Undergraduate Medical Education' published by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) was referenced for the first and only time in the 1957 standards, describing the development of attributes such as the provision of compassionate care as a basic objective of UME. Thereafter, there was infrequent mention of this value. Terms that could potentially incorporate aspects of compassionate care were identified, yet these were explicated in ways that limited connection to compassion. Instead, the term 'care' has increasingly been used instrumentally (ie acute care, chronic care). CONCLUSION: The relative absence of language pertaining to compassionate care in accreditation standards is troubling as compassion is integral to good medical care. This absence is particularly important to attend to in the current era of competency-based training where we must be explicit about all important curricular objectives lest essential values and practices be unintentionally lost.
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 | 0.047 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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 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".