China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Interprofessional education and interprofessional identity
Published in Roger Ellis, Elaine Hogard, Professional Identity in the Caring Professions, 2020
Jacqueline Bloomfield, Carl Schneider, Astrid Frotjold, Stuart Lane
The storming stage is the most difficult and the most crucial stage. This stage requires the development of trust in the other members of the group. The team starts to give their opinions and ideas towards the task at hand, which can lead to conflict and disagreement. As conflict and disagreement arise, team members may start to display perceptions or expectations of power differentials and hierarchy within the group. The different team members also start to recognise the different working and communication styles within the group, and they start to draw preferences towards certain people who they feel they can work with to a greater extent within the group. The atmosphere currently is civil and positive, even though they are forming impressions and making assumptions about the other members of the team. Personality clashes and major disagreements need to be addressed and resolved at this stage before the team can progress, and there is a risk that the team may never progress beyond this stage. Team performance may decrease at this stage as energy is invested in activities that are unproductive, and the teams that do progress past this stage may re-enter it if new challenges or disputes arise. To move through this phase, team members must work to overcome obstacles and accept individual differences. Tolerance and patience are key to ensuring this occurs. Team members need to feel that they are in a place of psychological safety and respect within the team, and this allows the development of trust that facilitates healthy robust discussion.19
Dealing with people
Published in Andrew Price, Andrew Scowcroft, John Edmonstone, Essential Skills for Managing in Healthcare, 2018
Andrew Price, Andrew Scowcroft, John Edmonstone
Staying with the medical metaphor for a moment, the problem with just responding to the obvious and immediate issues is that the place where we experience pain is not always the place where the real problem is. Pain in your arm might indicate heart problems, and pain in the shoulder can be the result of an inflamed gall bladder. In the same way, an apparent personality clash in a team may be the result of two members having unclear or incompatible roles. Appealing for calm or threatening disciplinary action may suppress the symptoms but the problem will remain. Poor attendance at team gatherings may be nothing to do with diary management or the time of the meeting. It may well indicate that some members find meetings to be uncomfortable or of little value, in which case a three-line whip may only increase frustration.
Surviving common pitfalls
Published in Richard Hays, Research Degrees for Health Professionals, 2018
It is also possible for research students and supervisors to just not be compatible people. This is a two-sided issue that probably comes down to personality clashes. If a supervisor suspects that he or she just cannot develop or maintain an effective supervisory relationship, he or she should initiate either a lesser role or withdrawal from the panel. If a student suspects a personality clash is developing, he or she should seek advice from other members of the panel or the research office. Early intervention on a ‘no fault’ basis is usually the best solution. Supervisors with a record of several personality clashes may well have a problem, but it is for the university to work that out. On the other hand, if a research student has several personality clashes (i.e. with the whole panel and with replacements), the problem is probably with the student.
Examining the Effects of Passing a Campus Carry Law: Comparing Campus Safety Before and After Georgia’s New Campus Carry Law
Published in Journal of School Violence, 2021
Jennifer McMahon-Howard, Heidi L. Scherer, James T. McCafferty
Although workplace violence between members of the campus population has not received substantial empirical attention, there is much evidence that interpersonal conflicts are not rare phenomenon on college campuses. Lester (2009) reported that faculty members had experienced workplace bullying perpetrated by individuals both internal (e.g., students, other employees) and external (e.g., parents) to the university, while May and Tenzek (2018) found that faculty have experienced verbal bullying and physical displays of anger by students. Further, it has been estimated that as many as one in five college students have felt bullied by, or experienced conflicts with, a faculty member (Harrison, 2007; Marraccini et al., 2015), while one out of every two students have witnessed what they perceived as faculty-on-student bullying (Marraccini et al., 2015). These types of conflicts, which often involve grade disputes, concerns over bias, and personality clashes (Harrison, 2007), have been found to increase fear among faculty and lead to long-term changes to pedagogy (May & Tenzek, 2018).
Sharing stories about medical education in difficult circumstances: Conceptualizing issues, strategies, and solutions
Published in Medical Teacher, 2019
Judy McKimm, Michelle Mclean, Trevor Gibbs, Ewa Pawlowicz
It is not possible to address each category of “difficult circumstance” in detail here (Table 1 provides more depth) and, in particular, the impact of system or organizational difficulties will vary hugely depending on specific contexts and personal/group responses. However, key issues arising from such pressures for the “people” involved typically center around the stress and low morale arises from poor interpersonal relationships (e.g. personality clashes), feeling disengaged and unmotivated, being overworked and “time-poor”, feeling unvalued and not understood, and a lack of knowledge (for students, this was about medical education). Other literature supports our findings, noting that stress, burnout and student and clinician suicide are key issues (which may be exacerbated in difficult circumstances) for both educators and students (e.g. Beyond Blue 2013; Royal College of Physicians 2013; Rotenstein et al. 2016). To this end, in their systematic review and meta-analysis of medical student mental health (167 cross-sectional studies, 16 longitudinal studies from 43 countries), Rotenstein and colleagues’ (2016) found a high prevalence (compared with the general population) of depression or depressive symptoms (27.2%) and suicide ideation (11.1%) amongst medical students. Whilst a number of support services exist for medical students and doctors in training, these are not always accessed by those who need them, partially due to the stigma surrounding mental health (Nash 2017).
Assessment methods and resource requirements for milestone reporting by an emergency medicine clinical competency committee
Published in Medical Education Online, 2018
Nikhil Goyal, Jason Folt, Bradley Jaskulka, Sudhir Baliga, Michelle Slezak, Lonni R. Schultz, Phyllis Vallee
AMA reflect actual observation and knowledge of resident performance by experienced educational faculty, and it was anticipated that all AMA for a given resident would be similar. However, when multiple faculty AMAs for individual residents were assessed, substantial agreement was only established for PC1, PC2 and PROF2 (Table 4). Clinical reasons for this lack of consistency include differences in the amount of clinical time faculty and residents worked together, variation in the clinical cases observed, halo effect from an exceptional clinical case or shift, negative effect from a poor patient encounter, and variations in faculty expectations – certain faculty may be more stringent and some may be more lenient while evaluating the same observation (the hawk-dove problem) [6,7]. Nonclinical factors, such as the impact of personality clashes and resident performance variations based on external, nonclinical stressors, also may have played a role. These issues as well as variations in the documentation of events into databases available for FMA completion may have added to the lack of correlation between AMA and FMA. It is also possible that each faculty interpreted the milestone language differently, suggesting that the milestones are not very objective. For example, two faculty members observing the same resident action may have come to different conclusions as to whether that action represented ‘orders appropriate diagnostic studies’ (PC3, Level 2, milestone 1) (Supplemental Table 1).