Student Committee for Academic Integrity and Professionalism

 

HOMEPAGE

ETHICAL PLEDGE

LEARN ABOUT US

SCAIP CASES

REFERENCE MATERIAL

CONTACT US

 

SCAIP CASES

During a three week 4th year clinical rotation, a student was reported by the director of the rotation for falsifying the clinical evaluation written by the attending physician.  Questionable corrections on the evaluation regarding the number of days absent prompted the director of the rotation to investigate the matter. The attending confirmed that the changes from several absent days to only a few absent days had been made.  When confronted with the issue, the student admitted to changing the number of absent days.  The student felt that fewer days should have been listed due to "excused" absences and the student claimed that they had attempted to talk to the rotation director regarding the issue.  The rotation director and his staff could not confirm this claim.  To complicate this issue, the student's clinical performance in this rotation and in others had been below average.

Was this student's behavior dishonest?  Why?  What should the punishment be?

A peer committee of fellow 4th year students felt there was dishonesty and a lack of professionalism involved.  Due to the seriousness of the accusation and the record of below average clinical performance, the peer committee questioned the students ability to adequately practice medicine.  Their recommendation was a full review of the students academic and professional record by the Student Evaluation and Promotions Committee.  After a thorough review, the committee required the student to repeat the 4th year of medical school.