AN ASSESSMENT OF CONSENSUS OPINION REGARDING THE UNIQUE COMPONENTS AND VALUES OF PHYSICIAN-SCIENTISTS' PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY

Abstract

Background While the importance of physician-scientists' training is widely accepted, the unique components of their professional identity and its underlying ethical values have not been sufficiently studied. Methodology Senior physician scientists in Israel participated in a Delphi assessment aimed to develop a consensus opinion regarding the various components of identity, training and motivation of those engaged in this vocation. Results Fourteen panel members participated in 2 rounds of grading a questionnaire specifically constructed for this project. Twenty seven out of sixty-five items on the original questionnaire achieved a consensus (set as agreement of 75% and above among panel members). The panelists have agreed on the importance of possessing a moral character (with a special emphasis on truthfulness and commitment) as an ethical basis for physician-scientists' identity, on the significance of a unique professional competence (requiring a "scientific" approach to solving clinical problems) and on the central role of thirst for knowledge and curiosity in creating the motivation to become a physician-scientist. The panelists did not endorse the role of benevolence, compassion and humility as central components in the physician-scientists' identity (as compared to the identity of clinicians), and were not supportive of the need to demonstrate a differential approach to dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty in the clinic and in the lab. They have also rejected a claim that there may exist an inherent conflict between the demands of research and of clinical care. The panelists remained divided as to the impact of simultaneously engaging in research and in clinical care on the personal wellbeing of physician-scientists. Conclusions It was seen that senior physician-scientists on our panel sought for ways to define physician-scientists as being both ethical and competent – and as possessing unique identity components, which do not harm but rather advance the care of patients. As far as we know, this is a first attempt to present a collective opinion of senior physician-scientists regarding their professional identity. It should be viewed as an initial step in a long journey, calling for further research that will broaden and deepen our conclusions.