0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Resident Physician Forum |

Grievances Between Residents and Their Training Programs FREE

JAMA. 1999;281(4):379. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-4-jrf80041.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Prepared by Ashish Bajaj, AMA Department of Resident Physician Services.

The AMA-RPS receives inquiries from residents engaged in disputes with their training programs and with questions about grievance procedures. The AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs has 2 ethical opinions on these topics.

Ethical Opinion 9.05: Due Process

The basic principles of a fair and objective hearing should always be accorded to the physician or medical student whose professional conduct is being reviewed. The fundamental aspects of a fair hearing are a listing of specific charges, adequate notice of the right of a hearing, the opportunity to be present and to rebut the evidence, and the opportunity to present a defense. These principles apply when the hearing body is a medical society tribunal, medical staff committee, or other similar body composed of peers. The composition of committees sitting in judgment of medical students, residents, or fellows should include a significant number of persons at a similar level of training.

These principles of fair play apply in all disciplinary hearings and in any other type of hearing in which the reputation, professional status, or livelihood of the physician or medical student may be negatively impacted.

All physicians and medical students should observe these safeguards when serving on a committee that will pass judgment on a peer. All medical societies and institutions are urged to review their constitutions and bylaws and/or policies to make sure that these instruments provide for such procedural safeguards. (Issued prior to April 1977; Updated June 1994.)

Ethical Opinion 9.055: Disputes Between Medical Supervisors and Trainees

Clear policies for handling complaints from medical students, resident physicians, and other staff should be established and should include adequate provisions for protecting the confidentiality of complainants. Confidentiality should be protected when it does not hinder the subject's ability to respond to the complaint. Access to employment and evaluation files should be carefully monitored to remove the possibility of tampering. Resident physicians should be permitted access to their employment files and also the right to copy the contents thereof, within the provisions of applicable federal and state laws.

Medical students, resident physicians, and other staff should refuse to participate in patient care ordered by their supervisors in cases in which the orders reflect serious errors in clinical or ethical judgment, or physician impairment, that could result in a threat of imminent harm to the patient or to others. In these rare cases, the complainant may refuse to provide the care ordered by the supervisor, if that will not threaten the patient's immediate welfare. The complainant should communicate his or her concerns to the physician issuing the orders and, if necessary, to those mediating such disputes. Mechanisms for resolving these disputes immediately should be in place. Third-party mediators of such disputes may include the chief of staff or the involved service, the chief resident, a designated member of the institutional grievance committee, or, in large institutions, an institutional ombudsperson outside of the hospital staff hierarchy.

Retaliatory or punitive actions against those who raise complaints are a legitimate cause for filing a grievance with the appropriate institutional committee. (Issued June 1994 based on the report1 issued December 1993.)

References
AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.  Disputes between medical supervisors and trainees.  JAMA.1994;272:1861-1865.

Figures

Tables

References

AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.  Disputes between medical supervisors and trainees.  JAMA.1994;272:1861-1865.
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles