Surgeons as Educators A Guide for Academic Development and Teaching Excellence

272

activities. Once a problem has been identified, the individual must be provided

with a notice of deficiency and an opportunity to improve, with consequences for

failing to address the deficiency. In addition to participation in a remedial pro-

gram, the opportunity for feedback and reflection and post-intervention assess-

ment are necessary to determine the next steps. Whatever final decision is made,

as long as the process is fair and reasonable, that is, the decision was not arbitrary

or capricious, the decision will be upheld by the courts. Finally, legal proceed-

ings and grievance hearings are costly and time-consuming, so prevention is bet-

ter than cure. Therefore, the importance of intervening early is emphasized.

References

1. ACGME. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in general surgery.
   2017. http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/440_general_sur-
   gery_2016.pdf. Accesses 2.23.17.


2. Lucey CR, Boote R. Working with problem residents: a systematic approach. In: Holmboe ES,
   Hawkins RE, editors. Practical guide to the evaluation of clinical competence. Philadelphia:
   Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 201–16.


3. American Medical Association. AMA code of medical ethics: opinion 9.045: physicians with
   disruptive behavior. 2017. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2016/11/coet1-1611.html.
   Accessed 2.23.17.


4. Joint Commission. Behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. Sentinel Event Alert. Issue 40,
   July 9, 2008. https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/SEA_40.PDF. Accessed 2 .23.17.


5. Cohen B, et al. Model Medical Staff Code of Conduct. American Medical Association 2009
   http://www.ismanet.org/pdf/news/medicalstaffcodeofconduct.pdf. Accessed 2.23.17.


6. Physicians with disruptive behavior. Report of the Council on Ethical & Judicial Affairs AMA
   Report. 2000; 2-A-00:2.


7. Reynolds NT.  Disruptive physician behavior: use and misuse of the label. J Med Regul.
   2011;98(1):8–19.


8. Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. Disruptive behavior and clinical outcomes: perceptions of nurses
   and physicians. Am J Nurs. 2005;105(1):54–64.


9. Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and communica-
   tion defects on patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(8):464–71.


10. Hickson GB, et al. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002;287:2951–7.


11. Stelfox HT, Ghandi TK, Orav J, Gustafson ML. The relation of patient satisfaction with com-
    plaints against physicians, risk management episodes, and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med.
    2005;118(10):1126–33.


12. Papadakis MA, Hodgson CS, Teherani A, et  al. Unprofessional behavior in medical school
    is associated with subsequent disciplinary action by a state medical board. Acad Med.
    2004;79:244–9.


13. Hickson GB, Moore IN, Pichert JW, Benegas M. Balancing systems and individual account-
    ability in a safety culture. In: Berman S, editor. From front office to front line: essential issues
    for health care leaders. 2nd ed. Chicago: Joint Commission Resources International; 2012.
    p. 1–35.


14. Moore IN, Pichert JW, Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Blackford JU.  Rethinking peer
    review: detecting and addressing medical malpractice claims risk. Vanderbilt Law Rev.
    2006;59:1175–206.


15. Leape LL, Fromson JA. Problem doctors: is there a system-level solution? Ann Intern Med.
    2006;144:107–55.

H. Sanfey