On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Richard C Armitage
{"title":"On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice.","authors":"Richard C Armitage","doi":"10.1111/jep.14293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.</p><p><strong>Findings and discussion: </strong>The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party-either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients' clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively 'catching up' in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients' clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":"e14293"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.

Methods: The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.

Findings and discussion: The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party-either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients' clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively 'catching up' in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients' clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信