The elephant in the room: a mixed-methods study of remediation perceptions across resident physicians, teaching faculty, and program directors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/ry8ejf70Abstract
Background: Remediation in postgraduate medical education (PGME) is a complex, high-stakes endeavor. Studies have examined learner perspectives, but few have explored those of program directors and teaching faculty. We explored the perceptions and experiences of remediation from the perspectives of program directors (PDs), teaching faculty (TF), and resident physicians (RPs).
Methods: We used an explanatory sequential-mixed methods design underpinned by pragmatism, combining survey data with semi-structured, one-on-one interviews conducted with 17 participants purposively recruited from survey respondents. Data were collected between 2021-2023 and analyzed in 2024. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in duplicate by at least two team members. Discrepancies were discussed in regular meetings until consensus was reached.
Results: A total of 252 participants completed the survey, with response rates ranging from 3% to 37% across participant groups. We identified five themes: stigma, compassion, complexity, perfectionism culture, and peer support. Limited confidence by PDs and TF perpetuated the stigma of remediation and RPs reported remediation rarely being discussed. Participants also highlighted that substantial time and effort required for remediation goes unacknowledged, with limited resources and support for faculty involved in these processes.
Conclusions: Remediation in postgraduate medical education is shaped by shared experiences of stigma, complexity, and resource constraints, but also by a strong commitment to learner growth. Addressing these challenges will require action at individual, program, and system levels.
References
1. Steinert Y. The “problem” learner: whose problem is it? AMEE Guide No. 76. Med Teach 2013 Apr 1;35(4):e1035–45. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.774082
2. Cleland J, Leggett H, Sandars J, Costa MJ, Patel R, Moffat M. The remediation challenge: theoretical and methodological insights from a systematic review. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):242–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12052
3. Mills LM, Boscardin C, Joyce EA, Ten Cate O, O’Sullivan PS. Emotion in remediation: a scoping review of the medical education literature. Med Educ. 2021 Dec;55(12):1350–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14605
4. Mineyko A, Harper L, Weir E, Davis M, McLaughlin K. Variables impacting the likelihood of successful remediation during residency training. Med Teach. 2026 Jan 4;1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2604242
5. Hall AK, Schumacher DJ, Thoma B, et al. Outcomes of competency-based medical education: a taxonomy for shared language. Med Teach. 2021 Jul 3;43(7):788–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1925643
6. Kassam A, Vries I de, Zabar S, et al. The next era of assessment within medical education: exploring intersections of context and implementation. Perspect Med Educ. 2024 Oct 9;13(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1128
7. Kalet A, Guerrasio J, Chou CL. Twelve tips for developing and maintaining a remediation program in medical education. Med Teach. 2016 Aug;38(8):787–92. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1150983
8. Chou CL, Kalet A, Costa MJ, Cleland J, Winston K. Guidelines: the dos, don’ts and don’t knows of remediation in medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Dec;8(6):322–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00544-5
9. Shaker L, Amilcar C, Kothari N, Murano T. Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of remediation among trainees in graduate medical education programs. J Emerg Med. 2023 Jul 1;65(1):e41–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.04.008
10. Krzyzaniak SM, Kaplan B, Lucas D, Bradley E, Wolf SJ. Unheard voices: a qualitative study of resident perspectives on remediation. J Grad Med Educ. 2021 Aug;13(4):507–14. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-01481.1
11. Castanelli DJ, Molloy E, Bearman M. The stigma of underperformance in assessment and remediation. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2025 Jun;30(3):815–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10382-8
12. Scribd. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018 - Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Quantitative Research | Qualitative Research. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/document/997072436/Creswell-Plano-Clark-2018-Designing-and-Conducting-Mixed-Methods-Research [Accessed May 6, 2026].
13. Morgan DL. pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qual Inquir. 2014 Oct 1;20(8):1045–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733
14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006 Jan 1;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
15. Stenfors T, Kajamaa A, Bennett D. How to … assess the quality of qualitative research. Clin Teach. 2020;17(6):596–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13242
16. Olmos-Vega FM, Stalmeijer RE, Varpio L, Kahlke R. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Med Teach. 2022 Apr 7;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
17. Cooney CM, Aravind P, Hultman CS, et al. An analysis of gender bias in plastic surgery resident assessment. J Grad Med Educ. 2021 Aug 13;13(4):500–6. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-01394.1
18. Ismaeel R, Pusic L, Gottlieb M, Chan TM, Oyedokun TO, Thoma B. Bias in observed assessments in medical education: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2024 Dec 1;99(12):1438–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005794
19. Percival CS, Maggio LA, Wyatt TR, Martin PC. “The program director’s word … it’s stronger than the word of God”: epistemic injustice revealed through narratives of remediated graduate medical education residents. Med Educ. 2024 Jul;58(7):848–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15295 PubMed PMID: 38131235.
20. Mascaro JS, Florian MP, Ash MJ, et al. Ways of knowing compassion: how do we come to know, understand, and measure compassion when we see it? Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 2;11:547241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241
21. Bell A, Johnston A, Makwarimba E, Malhi R. Rewards and recognition for Canadian distributed medical education preceptors: a qualitative analysis. MedEdPublish (2016). 2022 Jun 17;12:36. https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.19152.2
22. Johnston A, Malhi R, Cofie N, et al. Currencies of recognition: What rewards and recognition do Canadian distributed medical education preceptors value? MedEdPublish (2016). 2022 Mar 1;12:12. https://doi.org/10.12688/mep.17540.1
23. Baecher-Lind L, Morgan HK, Bhargava R, et al. Under pressure: Supporting academic faculty in demanding times. Med Teach. 0(0):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2422006
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aleksandra Mineyko, Erin Weir, Lea Harper, Aliya Kassam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
How to Cite
