...
【24h】

Author's reply

机译:作者的答复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Sleath has already experienced the unfortunate tendency fortargetsettingto lead to perverse behaviours. Surelythe recommendation forGPs to diagnose dementia without reference to the memory clinic has come aboutto satisfy targets ratherthan out of concern for patients? It is also an example ofthedisturbingdisconnectthat often exists between diagnosis and support. Coebergh rightly raises the added challenge of makinga diagnosis of dementia in those with concomitant illness, and the difficulty of removing such a diagnosis, even when it is erroneous. Burns and colleagues are wrong to say that I thinkthe "current interest in dementia will lead to harm and overdiagnosis." I welcome the much needed attention that dementia care has received in recentyears. It is specific policies that worry me, particularly the new concept of setting targets for diagnosis rates. I am disappointed that Burns and colleagues did not mention this central theme of the article or acknowledge the ethical considerations and potential harms of such a policy.
机译:Sleath已经经历了不幸的趋势FortargetSetting,导致行为不良。当然,建议不参考记忆诊所的诊断痴呆症的建议却是为了满足目标而不是患者的关注吗?这也是诊断和支持之间经常存在的扰动性持续性的例子。 Coebergh正确地提出了在伴随疾病的患者中诊断痴呆症的额外挑战,即使是错误的,也很难消除这种诊断。伯恩斯和同事说我认为“当前对痴呆症的兴趣会导致伤害和过度诊断”。我欢迎痴呆症护理在回收时受到的急需关注。这是特定的政策让我担心,尤其是设定诊断率的新概念。令我失望的是,伯恩斯和同事没有提及本文的中心主题,也没有承认这种政策的道德考虑和潜在危害。

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