关于法律监护:对住院医生的知识、态度和实践进行探索性评估。

IF 3.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2023.2256965
Aldo Barajas-Ochoa, Thomas I Mackie, Bintu Fofana, Jennifer N Rosen Valverde
{"title":"关于法律监护:对住院医生的知识、态度和实践进行探索性评估。","authors":"Aldo Barajas-Ochoa, Thomas I Mackie, Bintu Fofana, Jennifer N Rosen Valverde","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2023.2256965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians encounter patients under legal guardianship. We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on legal guardianship in residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A KAP pilot survey about legal guardianship was developed by an interdisciplinary medicine-law-public health team and was distributed <i>via</i> institutional email to internal medicine, psychiatry, and neurology residents in a single academic institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 172 invited residents, 105 (61%) responded and 102 surveys were included in the final analysis. Most respondents (58% women; internal medicine 73%, neurology 15%, psychiatry 12%) had attended 42 medical schools from 16 countries and had heard about guardianship (88%), but only 23% reported having received training on guardianship during medical school or residency. The vast majority (97%) understood the intended benefit of guardianship, but only 22.5% reported knowing that guardianship removed an individual's decision-making rights. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported never having asked for documentation to prove that an individual was a patient's guardian, and only 15% expected to see a court order as proof of guardianship status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most residents intuitively understood the intended benefit of guardianship, they did not understand its full implications for clinical practice. Training interventions are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"399-405"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On legal guardianship: An exploratory assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices of resident physicians.\",\"authors\":\"Aldo Barajas-Ochoa, Thomas I Mackie, Bintu Fofana, Jennifer N Rosen Valverde\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0142159X.2023.2256965\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians encounter patients under legal guardianship. We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on legal guardianship in residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A KAP pilot survey about legal guardianship was developed by an interdisciplinary medicine-law-public health team and was distributed <i>via</i> institutional email to internal medicine, psychiatry, and neurology residents in a single academic institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 172 invited residents, 105 (61%) responded and 102 surveys were included in the final analysis. Most respondents (58% women; internal medicine 73%, neurology 15%, psychiatry 12%) had attended 42 medical schools from 16 countries and had heard about guardianship (88%), but only 23% reported having received training on guardianship during medical school or residency. The vast majority (97%) understood the intended benefit of guardianship, but only 22.5% reported knowing that guardianship removed an individual's decision-making rights. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported never having asked for documentation to prove that an individual was a patient's guardian, and only 15% expected to see a court order as proof of guardianship status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most residents intuitively understood the intended benefit of guardianship, they did not understand its full implications for clinical practice. Training interventions are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"399-405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2256965\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2256965","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床医生会遇到受法律监护的病人。我们旨在评估住院医生对法律监护的知识、态度和实践(KAP):一个跨学科的医学-法律-公共卫生团队制定了一份关于法律监护的 KAP 试点调查,并通过机构电子邮件发送给一家学术机构的内科、精神病学和神经病学住院医师:在受邀的 172 名住院医师中,105 人(61%)做出了回应,102 份调查被纳入最终分析。大多数受访者(女性占 58%;内科占 73%,神经科占 15%,精神病科占 12%)曾在 16 个国家的 42 所医学院就读并听说过监护权(88%),但只有 23% 的受访者表示在医学院或住院医师培训期间接受过有关监护权的培训。绝大多数人(97%)了解监护的预期好处,但只有 22.5% 的人表示知道监护会取消个人的决策权。近一半(47%)的受访者表示从未要求提供文件证明某人是患者的监护人,只有 15%的受访者希望看到法院命令作为监护人身份的证明:尽管大多数住院医师凭直觉就能理解监护权的预期益处,但他们并不了解监护权对临床实践的全部影响。有必要进行培训干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On legal guardianship: An exploratory assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices of resident physicians.

Background: Clinicians encounter patients under legal guardianship. We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on legal guardianship in residents.

Methods: A KAP pilot survey about legal guardianship was developed by an interdisciplinary medicine-law-public health team and was distributed via institutional email to internal medicine, psychiatry, and neurology residents in a single academic institution.

Results: Of the 172 invited residents, 105 (61%) responded and 102 surveys were included in the final analysis. Most respondents (58% women; internal medicine 73%, neurology 15%, psychiatry 12%) had attended 42 medical schools from 16 countries and had heard about guardianship (88%), but only 23% reported having received training on guardianship during medical school or residency. The vast majority (97%) understood the intended benefit of guardianship, but only 22.5% reported knowing that guardianship removed an individual's decision-making rights. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported never having asked for documentation to prove that an individual was a patient's guardian, and only 15% expected to see a court order as proof of guardianship status.

Conclusions: Although most residents intuitively understood the intended benefit of guardianship, they did not understand its full implications for clinical practice. Training interventions are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
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