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:什么使医师受到学科审查?进一步的子类别

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:与大多数专业一样,医学具有自我调节的特权和责任。关于医师纪律的证据主要来自州医疗委员会的行动和报告。但是,医学专业协会也参加审查,并在必要时参加医师行为纪律。这项研究分析了一系列纵向案件,这些案件已提交给美国医学会(AMA)道德与司法事务委员会(CEJA)进行审查,就什么样的行为导致学科审查提供了全国性的看法。该研究还提出了导致纪律处分的行为的更详细分类法,这对于医师教育特别重要。方法:本研究样本包括5年(2004-2008年,包括2004年)进入CEJA进行初次和处置性检查的学科病例,代表298例病例和293例个体。以迭代方式进行的开放编码导致了纪律审查原因类别和子类别的代码簿。然后,每个案例由两位作者进行编码。对分歧进行了讨论和调和。结果:导致纪律检查的两种最常见的行为类别是药物滥用疾病(占病例的28%)和违反管制物质的行为(占27%)。过失/不称职(21%),犯罪活动(20%),欺诈/不实陈述(19%)和违反边界(12%)也是将医生带到CEJA的常见原因。子类别说明类别中的一系列行为;例如,违反边界的子类别包括与患者的恋爱关系,将家庭成员视为患者以及与患者发生性接触。结论:出于各种原因,医生由专业的医学纪律委员会进行了审查。虽然涉嫌行为的大类与其他研究相似,但本研究确定了亚类,这些亚类证明了导致医生进行学科审查的动作的复杂性。应当就此子类别对医师和医师进行培训,以降低纪律检查率并改善患者护理。

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