Purpose: In medical education, the influence of shame is largely absent from current conceptualizations of professional identity formation (PIF), even though this process is susceptible to the effects of shame experiences. This study endeavors to examine how shame influences PIF among medical learners. Method: Adopting a constructivist approach and hermeneutic phenomenology, the authors interviewed 9 final-year graduate medical trainees at 2 U.S. military medical centers between September 2022 and February 2023. The authors used a semistructured interview guide and photo-elicitation to deeply explore participants’ shame experiences and how these influenced participants’ PIF. Data analysis focused on understanding the lived experiences of these events and their impact on PIF, yielding themes central to the phenomenon of shame-induced PIF that helped characterize its deeper meaning. Results: Participants described shame events triggered by incidents like board exam failure, patient care mistakes, and needing educational remediation. Analyzing the influence of these events on PIF revealed 2 processes that helped propel identity arcs toward—and sometimes away from—an ideal version of the self: identity disruption and identity work. Identity disruption led to a distancing from the community and could lead to isolation, anxiety, and impaired belonging. These feelings of disruption often led to significant identity work, which involved modifying self-talk, leveraging agency, and engaging in identity negotiation (often in service of growth toward a modified professional identity). Conclusions: This study uncovers the potential for shame to serve as a catalyst for meaningful identity work in medical trainees. The findings expand on existing conceptualizations of PIF by highlighting that it is a dynamic, ongoing, nonlinear, and multidimensional process. The analysis points to actions educators and learners can take to support learners’ constructive navigation of shame experiences and their impact on PIF.

In-situ interprofessional emergency team training improves participants’ with confidence and knowledge and identifies latent safety threats. This study examined the impact of a structured debrief on an interprofessional perinatal team’s ability to identify latent safety threats and assess competency in managing perinatal emergencies. It was hypothesized that latent safety threats would be reduced and checklist compliance would increase during subsequent in-situ perinatal team training. Two in-situ training sessions were held six months apart. The perinatal emergency response team provided care for a standardized patient with preterm twin gestation. Each session included off-ward delivery and resuscitation of the first infant, transportation to appropriate inpatient units, cesarean delivery, and resuscitation of the second twin. Postpartum hemorrhage ensued, requiring massive transfusion protocol activation. Medical experts assessed team performance with critical action checklists. A structured debrief identified latent safety threats, developed action plans, and reviewed checklist compliance. Checklist compliance rates were analyzed using a z-ratio test. The first training session: seven teams (75 staff) completed 75% (292/391) critical action checklist items and identified 34 latent safety threats. Second training session: four teams (45 staff) completed 89% (94/106) critical action checklist items. Ten latent safety threats were mitigated during the second session. Utilizing a z-ratio, a significant difference was detected between the overall checklist compliance rates of the two sessions, z = -3.069, p = .002. Post-hoc power calculation was <10%. In-situ interprofessional perinatal emergency team training is feasible, identifies latent patient safety threats, and may improve team competency.

Medical education's pursuit of excellence often inadvertently fosters a "hidden curriculum" of perfectionism and shame. This culture can transform adaptive striving into maladaptive perfectionism, where a fear of failure leads learners to view mistakes not as growth opportunities but as evidence of moral failings and personal inadequacy. When errors inevitably occur, the potential result is shame or an identity-focused belief that "I am bad." The resulting isolation and self-doubt potentially can lead to imposter syndrome, burnout, and depression. This paper explores the critical role of shame-informed mentorship, an approach that recognizes how shame influences learner behavior and development. By responding with intentional strategies that preserve dignity, mentors can mitigate shame's potential impact and transform it into a catalyst for professional growth. We argue that by helping learners distinguish between corrosive shame ("I am the problem") and productive guilt ("I did something wrong"), mentors can facilitate behavioral change without damaging the learner's core identity. The paper offers practical, evidence-based strategies organized into three themes: Recognition-identifying "shame primers" such as perfectionistic histories and "shame triggers" like public questioning; Navigation-using validation, self-compassion, and the practice of "failing forward" to process active shame events; Cultivation-building long-term resilience through intellectual humility and the normalization of shared narratives. Collectively, these strategies provide a framework for intentionally building psychological safety and normalizing mistakes. By equipping mentors with tools to recognize and respond to shame, and by creating a culture that prioritizes formative feedback and a growth mindset, mentors can help transform shame from a destructive force into a catalyst for professional identity development and sustainable practice.

Background The role of clinician educators has expanded to encompass diverse responsibilities alongside providing competent care and engaging in scholarly activities. Faculty development (FD) programs have emerged as vital tools for equipping educators with teaching skills and career advancement opportunities. However, assessing faculty development programs’ impact on organizational culture remains challenging due to their multifaceted nature. This study explores this gap to understand how faculty development influences organizational culture. Methods This qualitative study used a constructivist approach to explore faculty perspectives on the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) Faculty Development Program’s influence on organizational culture. Forty-three faculty members participated in nine semi-structured focus groups, selected for diversity across roles and locations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized to ensure accuracy and participant confidentiality. Data analysis Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. A multidisciplinary team independently reviewed transcripts, identified preliminary codes, and refined themes through iterative consensus building. Coding was organized using memos and grouped into themes. Using information power principles, the team determined that nine focus groups provided sufficient data richness to meet the study’s aims. Results The research team identified and refined four central themes: professionalization, legitimization, the value of community, and leadership impact. The participants reported a greater sense of professionalization through enhanced teaching skills, increased awareness of educational literature, and heightened confidence in their educator roles. The faculty development program fostered a strong community, promoting collaboration, knowledge sharing, and mutual support across specialties and locations. Leadership impact was evident at individual and institutional levels, increasing confidence, mentorship, and organizational support. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the organizational impact of faculty development programs, shedding light on how such initiatives influence faculty experiences and organizational culture. Future research should explore leadership values, faculty retention, burnout prevention, and the broader value of education within academic institutions.

Introduction: Traditional program evaluation in medical education often faces challenges with large data volumes and manual analysis, which can delay data-driven decisions. This article introduces the artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced program evaluation (AIEPE) framework to address this gap, proposing a novel, integrated approach using both traditional and generative AI to improve efficiency and insight. Method: The AIEPE framework is a five-phase, iterative system that augments human evaluators. It begins with Multi-Modal Data Aggregation (Phase 1). Next, a Dual-Stream AI-Powered Analysis (Phase 2) uses traditional AI for sentiment and thematic analysis while generative AI synthesizes narrative summaries. These insights inform AI-Powered Strategic Formulation (Phase 3), which assists in prioritizing issues and drafting action plans. The final phases, Human-in-the-Loop Decision-Making (Phase 4) and Programmatic Implementation and Iteration (Phase 5), ensure continuous improvement with human oversight. Results: Applying the AIEPE framework to a faculty development program evaluation, we analyzed 3361 qualitative comments. Sentiment analysis revealed 87.6% positive comments and thematic analysis identified key topics. The dual-stream approach provided a deeper understanding, linking a high no show rate in an AI course to faculty feeling unprepared. This led to a top-priority recommendation to redesign the curriculum. Discussion: The AIEPE framework transforms program evaluation from a labor-intensive process into a dynamic engine for continuous improvement. It empowers academic leaders to shift from data collection to architects of data-informed strategy. Although the framework significantly increases efficiency and depth of insight, it highlights the critical need for human oversight to mitigate challenges such as bias and over reliance on technology.