Chaperones Utilization in Clinical Practice: Intimate and Sensitive Physical Examination Best Practice Strategies and Concepts in Modern Urological Medicine.

IF 2 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Health Psychology Research Pub Date : 2022-11-03 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.38954
Tarini Mitra, Nicolas K Koerber, Harini Shah, Austin C Kassels, Danyon J Anderson, Brennen J Cooper, Meghan B Schaefer, Alan D Kaye, Harish B Bangalore Siddaiah, Jibin S Mathew, Jeffrey R Sterritt, Zachary S Lee, Ivan Urits
{"title":"Chaperones Utilization in Clinical Practice: Intimate and Sensitive Physical Examination Best Practice Strategies and Concepts in Modern Urological Medicine.","authors":"Tarini Mitra, Nicolas K Koerber, Harini Shah, Austin C Kassels, Danyon J Anderson, Brennen J Cooper, Meghan B Schaefer, Alan D Kaye, Harish B Bangalore Siddaiah, Jibin S Mathew, Jeffrey R Sterritt, Zachary S Lee, Ivan Urits","doi":"10.52965/001c.38954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The intention of utilizing chaperones during sensitive physical exams is to show respect to the patient, while simultaneously providing protection to both the patient and the medical provider. Despite clinical practice recommendations to offer chaperones for sensitive urologic exams, there is no data regarding the consistency of chaperone utilization. Our aim was to summarize the patient and provider perspectives on the role of chaperones in urology as well as identify barriers to implement chaperone consistency. In the present investigation, we conducted a systematic review of prospective, case-control, and retrospective studies and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for data reporting. Studies were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE, and PMC using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms \"chaperones, patient\", \"chaperones, medical\", and keywords \"chaperones\", and \"urology\". Studies were included if they addressed patient/provider perspectives on chaperone utilization in urology specifically and were excluded if they investigated perspectives on chaperone utilization in other specialties. Preliminary study identification yielded 702 studies, 9 of which were eligible for this review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies focused on the patient perspective and 5 focused on the provider perspective. The percentage of patients that did not have a chaperone present during their urologic exam ranged from 52.9-88.5%. A greater proportion of these patients were male. Patients (59%) prefer a family member compared to a staff member as a chaperone. Physicians (60%) prefer staff member chaperones compared to family members. One study reported that 25.6% of patients did not feel comfortable to ask for a chaperone if they were not offered one. Two studies reported the percentage of patients who believed chaperones should be offered to all urology patients, ranging from 73-88.4%. Three studies reported the use of chaperones in the clinic which ranged from 5-72.5%. Two studies reported chaperone utilization documentation, ranging between 16-21.3%. Two studies reported the likelihood of chaperone utilization depending on gender of the physician, showing that male physicians were more likely to utilize chaperones and were 3x more likely to offer chaperones to their patients compared to female physicians. Research suggests that there are differing perspectives between patients and physicians regarding the specific role and benefits chaperones offer during a sensitive urologic examination, as well as differences in preferences of who should perform the role of the chaperone. While more work needs to be done to bridge the divide between clinical practice and patient/physician preferences, the act of offering chaperones to urologic patients, regardless if they want to utilize a chaperone for their examination is respectful of patient privacy and decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":51865,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Research","volume":" ","pages":"38954"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9680846/pdf/healthpsychologyresearch_2022_10_4_38954.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.38954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The intention of utilizing chaperones during sensitive physical exams is to show respect to the patient, while simultaneously providing protection to both the patient and the medical provider. Despite clinical practice recommendations to offer chaperones for sensitive urologic exams, there is no data regarding the consistency of chaperone utilization. Our aim was to summarize the patient and provider perspectives on the role of chaperones in urology as well as identify barriers to implement chaperone consistency. In the present investigation, we conducted a systematic review of prospective, case-control, and retrospective studies and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for data reporting. Studies were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE, and PMC using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "chaperones, patient", "chaperones, medical", and keywords "chaperones", and "urology". Studies were included if they addressed patient/provider perspectives on chaperone utilization in urology specifically and were excluded if they investigated perspectives on chaperone utilization in other specialties. Preliminary study identification yielded 702 studies, 9 of which were eligible for this review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies focused on the patient perspective and 5 focused on the provider perspective. The percentage of patients that did not have a chaperone present during their urologic exam ranged from 52.9-88.5%. A greater proportion of these patients were male. Patients (59%) prefer a family member compared to a staff member as a chaperone. Physicians (60%) prefer staff member chaperones compared to family members. One study reported that 25.6% of patients did not feel comfortable to ask for a chaperone if they were not offered one. Two studies reported the percentage of patients who believed chaperones should be offered to all urology patients, ranging from 73-88.4%. Three studies reported the use of chaperones in the clinic which ranged from 5-72.5%. Two studies reported chaperone utilization documentation, ranging between 16-21.3%. Two studies reported the likelihood of chaperone utilization depending on gender of the physician, showing that male physicians were more likely to utilize chaperones and were 3x more likely to offer chaperones to their patients compared to female physicians. Research suggests that there are differing perspectives between patients and physicians regarding the specific role and benefits chaperones offer during a sensitive urologic examination, as well as differences in preferences of who should perform the role of the chaperone. While more work needs to be done to bridge the divide between clinical practice and patient/physician preferences, the act of offering chaperones to urologic patients, regardless if they want to utilize a chaperone for their examination is respectful of patient privacy and decision making.

陪护在临床实践中的应用:亲密而敏感的体格检查 现代泌尿外科医学的最佳实践策略和概念。
在敏感体检中使用陪护的目的是为了表示对患者的尊重,同时为患者和医疗服务提供者提供保护。尽管临床实践建议在敏感的泌尿科检查中提供陪护,但目前还没有关于陪护使用一致性的数据。我们的目的是总结患者和医疗服务提供者对陪护在泌尿科中的作用的看法,并找出实施陪护一致性的障碍。在本次调查中,我们对前瞻性、病例对照和回顾性研究进行了系统回顾,并遵循 PRISMA 2020 指南进行数据报告。我们使用医学主题词表(MeSH)中的术语 "陪护,患者"、"陪护,医疗 "以及关键词 "陪护 "和 "泌尿科",从 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 PMC 中找到了相关研究。如果研究涉及患者/医护人员对泌尿外科陪护人员使用情况的看法,则纳入该研究;如果研究涉及其他专科对陪护人员使用情况的看法,则不纳入该研究。经过初步研究鉴定,共有 702 项研究,其中 9 项在应用纳入和排除标准后符合本综述的要求。其中 4 项研究从患者角度出发,5 项研究从医疗服务提供者角度出发。泌尿科检查时没有陪护的患者比例从 52.9% 到 88.5%不等。其中男性患者所占比例较大。与工作人员相比,患者(59%)更喜欢由家人陪同。与家属相比,医生(60%)更喜欢工作人员陪护。一项研究报告称,25.6% 的患者在没有陪护的情况下不愿意要求陪护。两项研究报告了认为应为所有泌尿科患者提供陪护的患者比例,从 73% 到 88.4%不等。三项研究报告了陪护人员在临床中的使用情况,使用率从 5% 到 72.5%。两项研究报告了陪护人员的使用记录,使用率在 16-21.3% 之间。两项研究根据医生的性别报告了使用陪护的可能性,结果显示,与女医生相比,男医生更有可能使用陪护,为患者提供陪护的可能性是女医生的 3 倍。研究表明,患者和医生对陪护在敏感的泌尿科检查中的具体作用和益处有不同的看法,对由谁来扮演陪护角色也有不同的偏好。虽然还需要做更多的工作来弥合临床实践与患者/医生偏好之间的鸿沟,但无论泌尿科患者是否愿意在检查中使用陪护,为他们提供陪护的行为都是对患者隐私和决策的尊重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Psychology Research
Health Psychology Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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