» Articles » PMID: 32664983

Assessment of Medical Professionalism Using the Professionalism Mini Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) in a Multi-ethnic Society: a Delphi Study

Overview
Journal BMC Med Educ
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2020 Jul 16
PMID 32664983
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The importance of medical professionalism and its assessment has been well documented in the literature. However, there is currently no culturally-adapted tool to assess medical professionalism in Singapore. This study sets out to find consensus on relevance of the items from the Professionalism Mini Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) for assessing medical professionalism in Singapore.

Methods: A two-round Delphi survey was completed by an expert panel consisting of program directors, associate designated institutional officials, and designated institutional official (n = 15) from residency programs in Singapore. Round 1 comprised of 23 items from the P-MEX rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Definitely include, 2 = Possibly include, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Possibly exclude, 5 = Definitely exclude). In round 2, the experts received feedback from the previous round, and were asked to re-rate the items which did not achieve consensus in the previous round. The threshold for consensus in the study was defined as 70% or greater agreement among experts.

Results: Completed questionnaires for both rounds were received from all 15 experts. In round 1, 18 items (78%) achieved consensus to be included. In round 2, 1 (4%) item achieved consensus to be included. However, none of the remaining items achieved consensus to be removed, and they exhibited stability in responses. A list of 19 items covering four domains of medical professionalism (Doctor-patient relationship skills, Reflective skills, Time management and Inter-professional relationship skills) was obtained during the two-rounds of Delphi survey.

Conclusions: Nineteen items in the P-MEX had garnered consensus and is suitable for assessing medical professionalism in Singapore. The findings of this study can provide guidance for faculty and institutions who want to assess medical professionalism of their medical trainees.

Citing Articles

When, where and how should we assess professionalism in undergraduate medical education? Practical tips from an international conference roundtable discussion.

Patterson C, Goodwin A, Collins K, Oliver S, Paton C MedEdPublish (2016). 2025; 14:280.

PMID: 39925453 PMC: 11803192. DOI: 10.12688/mep.20532.1.


Self-Assessment of Medical Ethics and Professionalism: Comparison Between Preclinical and Clinical Medical Students.

Naz Shaikh S, Abbas U, Shah T, Uqaili A, Allah Buksh H, Fatima M J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2025; 12():23821205241311476.

PMID: 39807281 PMC: 11726523. DOI: 10.1177/23821205241311476.


Adaptation of the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise instrument into Turkish: a validity and reliability study.

Tasci A, Akdeniz E, Gulpinar M, Danacioglu Y, Sari E, Yasar L BMC Med Educ. 2023; 23(1):698.

PMID: 37752458 PMC: 10523623. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-023-04675-6.


Exploring the Critical Driving Forces and Strategy Adoption Paths of Professional Competency Development for Various Emergency Physicians Based on the Hybrid MCDM Approach.

Chang M, Kung C, Yu S, Wang H, Lin C Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(4).

PMID: 36833005 PMC: 9957007. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11040471.

References
1.
Hodges B, Paul R, Ginsburg S, The Ottawa Consensus Group Members . Assessment of professionalism: From where have we come - to where are we going? An update from the Ottawa Consensus Group on the assessment of professionalism. Med Teach. 2019; 41(3):249-255. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1543862. View

2.
Lu L . "Cultural fit": individual and societal discrepancies in values, beliefs, and subjective well-being. J Soc Psychol. 2006; 146(2):203-21. DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.146.2.203-221. View

3.
Kwan Y, Png K, Phang J, Leung Y, Goh H, Seah Y . A Systematic Review of the Quality and Utility of Observer-Based Instruments for Assessing Medical Professionalism. J Grad Med Educ. 2019; 10(6):629-638. PMC: 6314360. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00086.1. View

4.
Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, Georgiou A, Kleijnen J . Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001; 357(9258):757-62. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04169-6. View

5.
. Doctors in society. Medical professionalism in a changing world. Clin Med (Lond). 2006; 5(6 Suppl 1):S5-40. View