拉丁美洲背景下临床伦理咨询对医生的影响

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS
Nathalia Rodríguez-Suárez, Paula Prieto-Martínez
{"title":"拉丁美洲背景下临床伦理咨询对医生的影响","authors":"Nathalia Rodríguez-Suárez,&nbsp;Paula Prieto-Martínez","doi":"10.1007/s41649-023-00271-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Clinical bioethics plays a significant role in hospital settings through bioethics consultations, which focus on providing ongoing assistance in complex situations within the doctor-patient dynamic. These consultations entail regular interaction between physicians and clinical bioethicists. This situation prompts an exploration into how bioethics consultations affect physicians. The current research aims to understand the influence of bioethics consultations on physicians’ bioethical knowledge by analyzing the lexical content in their patients’ medical records. Medical records are a synthesis carried out by physicians, often reflecting collaborative efforts, and capturing verbal statements indicative of thought processes suggestive of learning. The study is a sequential mixed-methods design with a retrospective descriptive approach, comparing medical records from the early years of the Department of Humanism and Bioethics’ operation (2013–2015) to the more recent ones (2019). Technical bioethical terminology such as “therapeutic effort limitation,” “futility,” “beneficence,” and “respect for autonomy” is more prevalent in recent medical records. This trend may stem from the positive impact of bioethics consultations conducted by the Department, with haptic communication serving as a particularly effective form of interaction with others during experiences of moral distress. This appears to be characteristic of cultures like those in Latin America.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"16 4","pages":"635 - 651"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Clinical Ethics Consultations on Physicians in a Latin American Context\",\"authors\":\"Nathalia Rodríguez-Suárez,&nbsp;Paula Prieto-Martínez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41649-023-00271-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Clinical bioethics plays a significant role in hospital settings through bioethics consultations, which focus on providing ongoing assistance in complex situations within the doctor-patient dynamic. These consultations entail regular interaction between physicians and clinical bioethicists. This situation prompts an exploration into how bioethics consultations affect physicians. The current research aims to understand the influence of bioethics consultations on physicians’ bioethical knowledge by analyzing the lexical content in their patients’ medical records. Medical records are a synthesis carried out by physicians, often reflecting collaborative efforts, and capturing verbal statements indicative of thought processes suggestive of learning. The study is a sequential mixed-methods design with a retrospective descriptive approach, comparing medical records from the early years of the Department of Humanism and Bioethics’ operation (2013–2015) to the more recent ones (2019). Technical bioethical terminology such as “therapeutic effort limitation,” “futility,” “beneficence,” and “respect for autonomy” is more prevalent in recent medical records. This trend may stem from the positive impact of bioethics consultations conducted by the Department, with haptic communication serving as a particularly effective form of interaction with others during experiences of moral distress. This appears to be characteristic of cultures like those in Latin America.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"635 - 651\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-023-00271-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-023-00271-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床生物伦理学通过生物伦理学会诊在医院环境中发挥着重要作用,其重点是在医患关系复杂的情况下提供持续的帮助。这些会诊需要医生和临床生物伦理学家之间的定期互动。这种情况促使人们探索生命伦理学咨询如何影响医生。目前的研究旨在通过分析病人病历中的词汇内容,了解生命伦理学咨询对医生生命伦理学知识的影响。病历是医生进行的综合分析,通常反映了合作的努力,并捕捉到了表明学习的思维过程的口头陈述。本研究采用顺序混合方法设计,采用回顾性描述方法,比较人文主义与生命伦理学系运行初期(2013-2015 年)和近期(2019 年)的医疗记录。在近期的医疗记录中,"治疗努力限制"、"徒劳"、"受益 "和 "尊重自主权 "等生物伦理技术术语更为普遍。这一趋势可能源于该部开展的生命伦理学咨询所产生的积极影响,在经历道德困境时,触觉交流是与他人互动的一种特别有效的形式。这似乎是拉丁美洲文化的特点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Clinical Ethics Consultations on Physicians in a Latin American Context

Clinical bioethics plays a significant role in hospital settings through bioethics consultations, which focus on providing ongoing assistance in complex situations within the doctor-patient dynamic. These consultations entail regular interaction between physicians and clinical bioethicists. This situation prompts an exploration into how bioethics consultations affect physicians. The current research aims to understand the influence of bioethics consultations on physicians’ bioethical knowledge by analyzing the lexical content in their patients’ medical records. Medical records are a synthesis carried out by physicians, often reflecting collaborative efforts, and capturing verbal statements indicative of thought processes suggestive of learning. The study is a sequential mixed-methods design with a retrospective descriptive approach, comparing medical records from the early years of the Department of Humanism and Bioethics’ operation (2013–2015) to the more recent ones (2019). Technical bioethical terminology such as “therapeutic effort limitation,” “futility,” “beneficence,” and “respect for autonomy” is more prevalent in recent medical records. This trend may stem from the positive impact of bioethics consultations conducted by the Department, with haptic communication serving as a particularly effective form of interaction with others during experiences of moral distress. This appears to be characteristic of cultures like those in Latin America.

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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
×
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