↓ Skip to main content

Power Day: Addressing the Use and Abuse of Power in Medical Training

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
Title
Power Day: Addressing the Use and Abuse of Power in Medical Training
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-016-9714-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy R. Angoff, Laura Duncan, Nichole Roxas, Helena Hansen

Abstract

Medical student mistreatment, as well as patient and staff mistreatment by all levels of medical trainees and faculty, is still prevalent in U.S. clinical training. Largely missing in interventions to reduce mistreatment is acknowledgement of the abuse of power produced by the hierarchical structure in which medicine is practiced. Beginning in 2001, Yale School of Medicine has held annual "Power Day" workshops for third year medical students and advanced practice nursing students, to define and analyse power dynamics within the medical hierarchy and hidden curriculum using literature, guest speakers, and small groups. During rotations, medical students write narratives about the use of power witnessed in the wards. In response to student and small group leader feedback, workshop organizers have developed additional activities related to examining and changing the use of power in clinical teams. Emerging narrative themes included the potential impact of small acts and students feeling "mute" and "complicit" in morally distressing situations. Small groups provided safe spaces for advice, support, and professional identity formation. By 2005, students recognized residents that used power positively with Power Day awards and alumni served as keynote speakers on the use of power in medicine. By 2010, departments including OB/GYN, surgery, psychiatry, and paediatrics, had added weekly team Power Hour discussions. Next Steps: The authors highlight barriers, benefits, and lessons learned. Barriers include the notion of clinical irrelevance and resistance to the word "power" due to perceived accusation of abuse. Benefits include promoting open dialogue about power, fostering inter-professional collaboration, rewarding positive role modelling by residents and faculty, and creating a network of trainee empowerment and leadership. Furthermore, faculty have started to ask that issues of power be addressed in a more transparent way at their level of the hierarchy as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 11%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 15 7%
Other 50 23%
Unknown 60 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 12%
Social Sciences 16 8%
Psychology 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 65 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#5,917,108
of 24,373,273 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#210
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,678
of 304,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,373,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.