Michael Gottlieb

ABSTRACT The authors argue that individual psychologists have an obligation to understand, review, and comment on upcoming revisions of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Psychologists may want to consider several factors as they review and prepare comments on these revisions. Among other things, commenting psychologists should consider the purposes of ethics codes and how the writing of a code can meet or balance these often-conflicting purposes; the overarching ethical theory or theories that should form the basis of the APA Ethics Code; and the extent to which individual standards are useful and comprehensive, and avoid unnecessary harm to both the public and psychologists. The authors provide examples from the current and recent APA Ethics Codes to illustrate the types of decisions that psychologists must make when evaluating revisions to the APA Ethics Code.

O’Donohue has identified 37 criticisms of the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Ethics Code), although many of his criticisms go far beyond what is found written in the APA Ethics Code, to include the process of adjudicating ethics complaints by the American Psychological Association Ethics Committee, and the process by which the Ethics Code was developed. The authors claim that a major shortcoming of O’Donohue’s article is that he adopted an unrealistically expansive role for the Ethics Code that was not clearly linked to furthering the goals of the ethics code revision.

Respect for the dignity and autonomy of patients has long been a fundamental principle of ethical decision making. As a practical matter, a primary way of maintaining this ethical standard is by obtaining an individual’s informed consent prior to intervening or collecting data. By giving individuals clear information about alternative treatments and potential risks and benefits, the practitioner tries to ensure that the patient can make an informed choice. However, there are cases in which those seeking informed consent have very different values and belief systems from those whose consent is being sought. In this article we explore such discrepancies using informed consent with Navajo clients as an example, illustrate potential challenges with case examples, and propose ways in which ethical dilemmas may be successfully navigated.

Introduction: A proper understanding of study design is essential to creating successful studies. This is also important when reading or peer reviewing publications. In this article, we aimed to identify and summarize key papers that would be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about study design in medical education research. Methods: The online discussions of the 2016-2017 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Faculty Incubator program included a robust and vigorous discussion about education study design, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We augmented this list of papers with further suggestions by expert mentors. Via this process, we created a list of 29 papers in total on the topic of medical education study design. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on the papers that were most valuable for the understanding of proper study design in medical education. Results: We selected the top five most highly rated papers on the topic domain of study design as determined by our study group. We subsequently summarized these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion: This article summarizes five key papers addressing study design in medical education with discussions and applications for junior faculty members and faculty developers. These papers provide a basis upon which junior faculty members might build for developing and analyzing studies.

Introduction: Emergency department crowding is associated with detrimental effects on EDquality of care. Triage liaison providers have been used to mitigate the effects of crowding.Prior studies have evaluated attending physicians and advanced practice providers as TLPs, withlimited data evaluating resident physicians as TLPs. This study compares operational performanceoutcomes between resident and attending physicians as TLPs. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared aggregate operational performance at anurban, academic ED during pre- and post-TLP periods. The primary outcome was defined ascost-effectiveness based upon return on investment. Secondary outcomes were defined asdifferences in median ED length of stay, median door-to-provider time, proportion of leftwithout being seen, and proportion of “very good” overall patient satisfaction scores. Results: Annual profit generated for physician-based collections through LWBS capture equated to a gain for resident TLPs and a loss for attending TLPs. Accounting for hospital-based collections made both profitable,with gains for resident TLPs and for attending TLPs. Median DTP time forresident TLPs was significantly lower than attending or historical control. Proportion of “verygood” patient satisfaction scores and LWBS was improved for both resident and attending TLPs overhistorical control. Overall median LOS was not significantly different. Conclusion: Resident and attending TLPs improved DTP time, patient satisfaction, and LWBSrates. Both resident and attending TLPs are cost effective, with residents having a more favorablefinancial profile.

Introduction: Competency-based medical education presents a paradigm shift in medicaltraining. This outcome-based education movement has triggered substantive changes across the globe.Since this transition is only beginning, many faculty members may not have experience with CBMEnor a solid foundation in the grounding literature. We identify and summarize key papers to help facultymembers learn more about CBME. Methods: Based on the online discussions of the 2016-2017 ALiEM Faculty Incubator program, a seriesof papers on the topic of CBME was developed. Augmenting this list with suggestions by a guest expertand by an open call on Twitter for other important papers, we were able to generate a list of 21 papers intotal. Subsequently, we used a modified Delphi study methodology to narrow the list to key papers thatdescribe the importance and significance for educators interested in learning about CBME. To determinethe most impactful papers, the mixed junior and senior faculty authorship group used three-round votingmethodology based upon the Delphi method. Results: Summaries of the five most highly rated papers on the topic of CBME, as determined by thismodified Delphi approach, are presented in this paper. Major themes include a definition of core CBMEthemes, CBME principles to consider in the design of curricula, a history of the development of the CBMEmovement, and a rationale for changes to accreditation with CBME. The application of the study findingsto junior faculty and faculty developers is discussed. Conclusion: We present five key papers on CBME that junior faculty members and faculty expertsidentified as essential to faculty development. These papers are a mix of foundational and explanatorypapers that may provide a basis from which junior faculty members may build upon as they help toimplement CBME programs.

Introduction: Modern learners have immediate, unlimited access to a wide variety of onlineresources. To appeal to this current generation of learners, educators must embrace the useof technology. However, educators must balance newer, novel technologies with traditionalmethods to achieve the best learning outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to review several papersuseful for faculty members wishing to incorporate technology into instructional design. Methods: We identified a broad list of papers relevant to teaching and lea rning with technologywithin the online discussions of the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine FacultyIncubator. This list was augmented with suggestions by a guest expert and an open callon Twitter yielding 24 papers. We thenconducted a modified three-round Delphi process within the autho rship group, including juniorand senior faculty members, to identify the most impactful papers. Results: We pared the list of 24 papers to five that were most highly rate d. Two were researchpapers and three were commentaries or editorials. The authorship group reviewed andsummarized these papers with specific consideration to their val ue to junior educators andfaculty developers. Conclusion: This is a key reading list for junior faculty members and faculty developersinterested in teaching with technology. The commentary contextualizes the importance of thesepapers for medical educators, to optimize use of technology in their teaching or incorporate intofaculty development.

Introduction: Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientificpublishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education,peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of theirpeers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for juniorclinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues’ work. In thisarticle, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty membersinterested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills. Methods: The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted anumber of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guestexperts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a listof 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship groupengaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers thatbest described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers. Results: We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorshipgroup’s top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize thesepapers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. Conclusion: We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development fornovice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papersthat may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergothe peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn.