Clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and the need for clinical ethics consultation in Japan: A cross-sectional study.

PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences Pub Date : 2023-04-12 eCollection Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1002/pcn5.86
Hiroyuki Sato, Yoshiyuki Takimoto
{"title":"Clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and the need for clinical ethics consultation in Japan: A cross-sectional study.","authors":"Hiroyuki Sato, Yoshiyuki Takimoto","doi":"10.1002/pcn5.86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Psychiatrists often encounter ethical dilemmas in their daily clinical practice. Clinical ethics consultations (CECs) have been recently increasing, especially in general hospitals. However, the current situation in the psychiatric field is unclear. This study clarifies clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and determines the need for CECs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey in February 2022, which targeted directors and supervisors of psychiatric specialty training programs at 1224 psychiatry facilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 311 facilities (response rate: 25.4%). CEC systems existed in 223 (72.2%) facilities, and medical safety committees were the most common. Clinical ethics problems occurred at 248 (80.3%) facilities; the most common method for managing the problems was discussions at case conferences without using CECs. The top four reasons for psychiatrists to solicit advice were conflicts with patients' relatives, treating a patient with cognitive impairment, discontinuation of treatment, and suicide/attempted suicide. Most respondents (89.9%) considered CECs necessary.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although CECs exist in psychiatry, they may not meet the needs of clients. Future studies are needed to investigate client satisfaction and CEC evaluation methods in facilities where psychiatric CECs are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":74405,"journal":{"name":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"e86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11114266/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Psychiatrists often encounter ethical dilemmas in their daily clinical practice. Clinical ethics consultations (CECs) have been recently increasing, especially in general hospitals. However, the current situation in the psychiatric field is unclear. This study clarifies clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and determines the need for CECs.

Methods: We conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey in February 2022, which targeted directors and supervisors of psychiatric specialty training programs at 1224 psychiatry facilities.

Results: Responses were received from 311 facilities (response rate: 25.4%). CEC systems existed in 223 (72.2%) facilities, and medical safety committees were the most common. Clinical ethics problems occurred at 248 (80.3%) facilities; the most common method for managing the problems was discussions at case conferences without using CECs. The top four reasons for psychiatrists to solicit advice were conflicts with patients' relatives, treating a patient with cognitive impairment, discontinuation of treatment, and suicide/attempted suicide. Most respondents (89.9%) considered CECs necessary.

Conclusion: Although CECs exist in psychiatry, they may not meet the needs of clients. Future studies are needed to investigate client satisfaction and CEC evaluation methods in facilities where psychiatric CECs are provided.

日本精神病学的临床伦理问题和临床伦理咨询的必要性:一项横断面研究
目的:精神科医生在日常临床实践中经常会遇到伦理困境。临床伦理咨询(CEC)近来日益增多,尤其是在综合医院。然而,精神科领域的现状尚不明确。本研究阐明了精神科的临床伦理问题,并确定了对 CEC 的需求:我们于 2022 年 2 月进行了一项匿名自填式问卷调查,调查对象为 1224 家精神科机构的精神科专科培训项目主任和主管:共收到 311 家机构的回复(回复率:25.4%)。有 223 家机构(72.2%)建立了 CEC 系统,其中医疗安全委员会最为常见。有 248 家(80.3%)机构存在临床伦理问题;最常见的处理方法是在病例会议上进行讨论,而不使用 CEC。精神科医生征求意见的前四个原因是与患者亲属发生冲突、治疗认知障碍患者、中断治疗以及自杀/自杀未遂。大多数受访者(89.9%)认为 CEC 是必要的:结论:虽然精神科有 CEC,但它们可能无法满足客户的需求。今后需要对提供精神科 CEC 的机构的客户满意度和 CEC 评估方法进行调查研究。
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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