# Fostering Professional Identity Formation at IMEPAC ## Executive Summary This project outlines a comprehensive and supportive approach to integrating professional identity formation (PIF) into IMEPAC’s longitudinal assessment system. Drawing from international frameworks and local faculty input, this initiative aims to align competence assessment with the real-world formation of physicians-in-training. --- ## Project Goal To establish a supportive, longitudinal, and integrated assessment system at IMEPAC that fosters professional identity formation across all years of medical education. --- ## Project Roadmap ### Phase 1: System Review (Completed) - Conducted faculty survey and leadership discussions - Identified gaps in professionalism and PIF assessments ### Phase 2: Learner Input (Proposed) - Conduct student survey to complement faculty findings ### Phase 3: Integration (In Process) - Embed PIF into clinical debriefings, acknowledging tension between reflection and grading ### Phase 4: Framework Development - Create a customized IMEPAC assessment matrix aligned with Wilkinson et al. (2009) ### Phase 5: Faculty Support & Simplification - Align new models with familiar methods - Clarify processes and reduce overload ### Phase 6: Implementation & Evaluation - Pilot new tools - Gather feedback and iterate --- ## Key Finding from Faculty Survey Faculty want: - Better tools for assessing professionalism - Support in simulation-based feedback - Confidence in navigating identity-related teaching moments --- ## Strategic Design: Pacing Professionalism Across Years ### Adapted from Ten Cate et al. (2024): - **Years 1–4:** Focus on cognitive development and early professional behaviors - **Years 5–6:** Emphasize real-world clinical performance and identity --- ## IMEPAC Assessment Matrix (Draft) | Year(s) | Emphasis & Focus | Assessment Types | Tools & Frameworks | PIF Methods | |--------|-------------------|------------------|---------------------|-------------| | 1–2 | Canonical knowledge + early attitudes | MCQs, Concept Maps, Debriefs | Bloom’s Taxonomies | Reflection, Mentoring | | 3–4 | Clinical reasoning begins | OSCEs, P-MEX, Simulation | RIME, SJTs | Peer Feedback, Identity Discussion | | 5–6 | Workplace + adaptability | EPAs, DOPS, 360 Eval | EPAs, Kegan Model | Coaching, Narrative Feedback | --- ## Frameworks and Models Considered ### Three Dimensions of Professionalism (Irby & Hamstra, 2016) - Moral Character - Observable Behaviors - Identity and Internalization ### Professional Identity Frameworks - **TIME (Holden et al., 2015):** Complex domain matrix - **P-MEX (Bajwa et al., 2021):** Case-based domain alignment - **PIE Essay (Silveira et al., 2023):** Practical, low-burden tool --- ## Simulation-Based PIF: Considerations > "Learning occurs through recontextualization... in a socially constructed milieu." —Kainth & Reedy (2024) Facilitator training should emphasize: - Psychological safety - Role clarity - Progressive discourse --- ## Group Reflective Judgment Adapted from Hofer & Pintrich (2001) and van Oorschot et al.: - Map debrief comments to reflective stages - Address group vs. individual reliability --- ## Implementation Strategy - Needs Assessment ✅ - Curriculum & Tool Design 🛠 - Faculty Development 📚 - Pilot Testing 🧪 - Iterative Refinement 🔁 --- ## Final Thought There is a creative tension between teaching, assessing, and fostering professionalism. IMEPAC’s success will hinge on aligning expectations, communicating the “why,” and pacing change with purpose. --- ## References (Complete citations included in the markdown file)