首页> 外文期刊>AJOB empirical bioethics. >What Brings Physicians to Disciplinary Review? A Further Subcategorization
【24h】

What Brings Physicians to Disciplinary Review? A Further Subcategorization

机译:什么将医生带到纪律审查? 另一个子类别

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: Medicine, like most professions, has the privilege and responsibility of self-regulation. Evidence about physician discipline comes largely from state medical boards' actions and reports. However, medical professional associations also participate in the review and, when necessary, discipline of physician behavior. This study analyzes a longitudinal series of cases brought to the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) for review, providing a national view on what sorts of behaviors lead to disciplinary review. The study also presents a more detailed taxonomy of behaviors leading to disciplinary action, which is of particular importance for physician education. Methods: The study sample consisted of 5 years (2004-2008, inclusive) of disciplinary cases brought to the CEJA for initial and dispositive review, representing 298 cases and 293 individuals. Open coding in an iterative fashion led to a codebook of categories and subcategories of reasons for disciplinary review. Each case was then coded by two authors. Disagreements were discussed and reconciled as a group. Results: The two most common categories of behavior that led to disciplinary review were substance abuse disorders (28% of cases) and controlled-substance violations (27%). Negligence/incompetence (21%), criminal activity (20%), fraud/misrepresentation (19%), and boundary violations (12%) were also common reasons for which physicians were brought before the CEJA. Subcategories illustrate a range of behavior within categories; for instance, boundary-violation subcategories included romantic relationship with a patient, treating family members as patients, and having sexual contact with a patient. Conclusions: Physicians were reviewed by a professional medical disciplinary council for a variety of reasons. While the broad categories of alleged behavior are similar to those found in other studies, this study identified subcategories that demonstrate the complexity of actions that lead to physician disciplinary review. Physicians and physicians-in-training should be educated regarding this subcategorization in order to decrease the rate of discipline and improve patient care.
机译:背景:医学,如大多数职业,具有自我监管的特权和责任。关于医师纪律的证据主要来自国家医疗委员会的行动和报告。但是,医疗专业协会还参加了审查,并且在必要时,医师行为的纪律。本研究分析了向美国医学协会(AMA)道德和司法事务委员会(CEJA)提出审查的纵向系列案件,为审查提供全国性观点,这些行为导致纪律审查。该研究还提出了一个更详细的行为分类,导致纪律处分,这对医生教育特别重要。方法:研究样本由5年(2004 - 2008年,包容性)组成,纪律案件归于CEJA,以初始和分数审查,代表298例和293个个人。以迭代方式开放编码导致了纪律审查原因的类别和子类别的码本。然后通过两位作者编码每种情况。讨论了分歧并与团体合作。结果:导致纪律审查的两种最常见的行为类别是药物滥用障碍(28%的病例)和控制物质侵犯(27%)。疏忽/无能(21%),犯罪活动(20%),欺诈/虚假陈述(19%),违反违规行为(12%)也是在CEJA之前带来医生的常见原因。子类别说明了类别中的一系列行为;例如,边界违规子类别包括与患者的浪漫关系,将家庭成员视为患者,与患者进行性接触。结论:由于各种原因,专业医学纪律委员会审查了医生。虽然广泛类别的涉嫌行为类似于其他研究中的行为,但本研究确定了展示了导致医学纪律审查的行为复杂性的子类别。应该教育医师和医生培训,以便降低纪律率并改善患者护理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号