.

[alrightythen]

.

[bearded frog]

I don't know where you got these scenarios but they are so open ended... what co-worker relationships are not ok? what do they mean to speak out? to who? what action? Why wouldn't you offer help to a colleague in need? If something is illegal its not really a matter of opinion is it?

[alrightythen]

.
 

[BernieMac]

-

[alrightythen]

.

[takasugi]

I don't know why people are being difficult, just answer his question....

1 - There are examples of coworkers in a relationship on the same team not having any issue. Two adults can do whatever they want and are a lot of people are mature enough not to have it impact their work. However, may want to consider the power dynamics of their roles. Two physicians on an equal level being in a relationship is different than an authority figure in a relationship with a subordinate. Latter would make me more suspicious but that's not to say it couldn't work either. As for speaking out, if you see red flags, obviously you should speak out or take the time to better understand the situation, but if there doesn't appear something wrong, you don't need to stick your nose in the relationship of two consenting adults.

2 - By nature doctors are compassionate and well-meaning people that want the best for their patients so it's not hard to see why some would want to go beyond their job description and give their patients their personal information. However you also want to maintain good work-life balance, an overworked doctor is not able to provide the best care so while your intentions are good, you may in fact be making things worse by overstretching yourself. Every person decides whats important to them, some people are okay with working more at the expense of family and leisure time whereas other will prioritize their careers and work. Giving your personal information is an individual decision but it's not a part of the job description so you shouldn't judge someone who chooses not to do so.

3 -  I don't think its illegal. Gifts can look bad as whenever someone gives something, they tend to expect something in return or it can appear that they are buying influence. Potential for patient mistrust of physicians so if you do have a conflict of interest for example, a drug you are prescribing for your patients, you should at least be upfront about it as they are more likely to appreciate your honesty versus finding out about it. Your first priority is to your patients, not the pharma company. Gifts aren't necessarily bad though as they can play an important role in continuing education for physicians. For eg, there may be a really good drug out there that many physicians would not know if it was not for the pharma company reaching out to them. It also depends on the value of the gifts eg. a $50 meal vs a gifting someone an expensive watch is obviously different. So I wouldn't say its illegal or even unethical unless the aim of the gift is to buy influence. 

[bearded frog]

Just to clarify, I don't make scenarios, but I have been a marker in the past. The typical scenarios are a lot more specific, ie there will be a video about a specific situation then ask something like "What would you do in this scenario? Describe a time when it might be okay to [some morally ambigious thing]. Do you think that [thing] should be illegal? Why or why not?"

[jnuts]

I've been a reviewer for CASPer as well. 

Unfortunately,  they really mean what they say when the instructions state there is no correct answer. 

Reviewers are asked to score your answer based on their individual reaction to it.  For example, it's not impossible that your reviewer started a relationship with a subordinate and may feel unexpectedly strongly about your answer if you take an overly aggressive position against that type of thing. You'd never know.  On the other hand, your reviewers may have equally been a victim of that type of abusive relationship and will score any attempt to sympathize with the abuser with an automatic zero.  Again, you'd never know. Your reviewers are ideally supposed to be a cross section of the current medical community, and the example above highlights the possible divergent opinions in that group (as does every case of a personal relationship forming in a professional power discrepancy that has been publicized lately)

Multiple reviewers read each response. Scores well off the curve are supposed to be eliminated statistically.  Given that all reviewers have been granted access to 'the club' there's a general bias toward ethical and moral frameworks taught in medical school and the mainstream Canadian political gestalt.  But your particular set if reviewers may vary from the median to some degree.

The CASPer prompts are selected to be controversial. Your safest bet is to take a nuanced and thoughtful approach that weighs both sides of the arguement. You do need to pick a side and often need to state what you would do in the situation (certainly don't forget to do that!).  But spend the majority of your answer showing you can see both sides and PLEASE demonstrate some empathy. I personally looked for evidence of empathy and compassion above all else and scored overly academic answers poorly.

When you do need to pick a side or take a course of action try to stay as close as possible to mainstream positions.  Do not try to stand out. Unlike an in person interview, don't try to be funny or memorable; there's way too much risk of being misinterpreted.

To stay close to the mainstream review the C2LEO resources published by the Medical Council of Canada

https://mcc.ca/about/test-committee-resources/

[conbrio]

20 minutes ago, jnuts said:

I've been a reviewer for CASPer as well. 

Unfortunately,  they really mean what they say when the instructions state there is no correct answer. 

Reviewers are asked to score your answer based on their individual reaction to it.  For example, it's not impossible that your reviewer started a relationship with a subordinate and may feel unexpectedly strongly about your answer if you take an overly aggressive position against that type of thing. You'd never know.  On the other hand, your reviewers may have equally been a victim of that type of abusive relationship and will score any attempt to sympathize with the abuser with an automatic zero.  Again, you'd never know. Your reviewers are ideally supposed to be a cross section of the current medical community, and the example above highlights the possible divergent opinions in that group (as does every case of a personal relationship forming in a professional power discrepancy that has been publicized lately)

Multiple reviewers read each response. Scores well off the curve are supposed to be eliminated statistically.  Given that all reviewers have been granted access to 'the club' there's a general bias toward ethical and moral frameworks taught in medical school and the mainstream Canadian political gestalt.  But your particular set if reviewers may vary from the median to some degree.

The CASPer prompts are selected to be controversial. Your safest bet is to take a nuanced and thoughtful approach that weighs both sides of the arguement. You do need to pick a side and often need to state what you would do in the situation (certainly don't forget to do that!).  But spend the majority of your answer showing you can see both sides and PLEASE demonstrate some empathy. I personally looked for evidence of empathy and compassion above all else and scored overly academic answers poorly.

When you do need to pick a side or take a course of action try to stay as close as possible to mainstream positions.  Do not try to stand out. Unlike an in person interview, don't try to be funny or memorable; there's way too much risk of being misinterpreted.

To stay close to the mainstream review the C2LEO resources published by the Medical Council of Canada

https://mcc.ca/about/test-committee-resources/

I thought it was one reviewer per prompt/scenario? And I thought that not all reviewers are from the medical community. Is this no longer the case?

[jnuts]

On 10/28/2019 at 10:57 AM, conbrio said:

I thought it was one reviewer per prompt/scenario? And I thought that not all reviewers are from the medical community. Is this no longer the case?

You may know more than I do; it's been a few years since I graded these.  However, the last time I was briefed it was all either MDs or medical students and there was statistical analysis and standardization both intra- and inter- reviewer.  You could read the CASPer group's research publications for an exact breakdown of the methodology.

Even if what you are saying is accurate I don't think the specifics would change my advice. If you can't write for a specific reviewer, it makes strategic sense to target a stastically modal model reviewer.