医学生在麻醉状态下进行骨盆检查时的患者同意书:探索性回顾病历。

Q3 Medicine
Jessica A Jushchyshyn, Lakeisha Mulugeta-Gordon, Cara Curley, Florencia Greer Polite, Jon F Merz
{"title":"医学生在麻醉状态下进行骨盆检查时的患者同意书:探索性回顾病历。","authors":"Jessica A Jushchyshyn, Lakeisha Mulugeta-Gordon, Cara Curley, Florencia Greer Polite, Jon F Merz","doi":"10.1086/729416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractObjective: We performed this study to examine patients' choices to permit or refuse medical student pelvic examinations under anesthesia (EUAs) during planned gynecologic procedures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of electronic consent forms at a single academic medical center using contingency tables, logistic regression, and nonparametric tests to explore relationships between patient and physician characteristics and consent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified and downloaded electronic consent forms for a census of 4,000 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery from September 2020 through calendar year 2022. Forms were linked to anonymized medical record information. Of the 4,000 patients, 142 (3.6%) were removed from analysis because consent forms were incomplete. Of 3,858 patients, 308 (8.0%) were asked for EUA consent more than once, 46 of whom were not consistent. Overall, 3,308 (85.7%) patients consented every time asked, and 550 (14.2%) refused or limited EUA consent at least once. Nine patients limited their consent to female students, and two patients refused medical student participation at all. We performed exploratory multiple logistic regression analyses exploring differences in rates of consent across patient and physician demographic groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We find that some patients are more likely than others to refuse a pelvic EUA, magnifying the dignitary harm from a nonconsensual invasion of intimate bodily integrity and perpetuating historic wrongs visited upon vulnerable people of color and religious minorities. Patients' rights to respect and control over their bodies require that physicians take seriously the ethical obligation to inform their patients and ask them for permission.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"35 2","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica A Jushchyshyn, Lakeisha Mulugeta-Gordon, Cara Curley, Florencia Greer Polite, Jon F Merz\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/729416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractObjective: We performed this study to examine patients' choices to permit or refuse medical student pelvic examinations under anesthesia (EUAs) during planned gynecologic procedures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of electronic consent forms at a single academic medical center using contingency tables, logistic regression, and nonparametric tests to explore relationships between patient and physician characteristics and consent.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified and downloaded electronic consent forms for a census of 4,000 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery from September 2020 through calendar year 2022. Forms were linked to anonymized medical record information. Of the 4,000 patients, 142 (3.6%) were removed from analysis because consent forms were incomplete. Of 3,858 patients, 308 (8.0%) were asked for EUA consent more than once, 46 of whom were not consistent. Overall, 3,308 (85.7%) patients consented every time asked, and 550 (14.2%) refused or limited EUA consent at least once. Nine patients limited their consent to female students, and two patients refused medical student participation at all. We performed exploratory multiple logistic regression analyses exploring differences in rates of consent across patient and physician demographic groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We find that some patients are more likely than others to refuse a pelvic EUA, magnifying the dignitary harm from a nonconsensual invasion of intimate bodily integrity and perpetuating historic wrongs visited upon vulnerable people of color and religious minorities. Patients' rights to respect and control over their bodies require that physicians take seriously the ethical obligation to inform their patients and ask them for permission.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"35 2\",\"pages\":\"93-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/729416\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/729416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要目的:我们进行了这项研究:我们进行了这项研究,以考察患者在计划的妇科手术中允许或拒绝医学生进行麻醉下盆腔检查(EUAs)的选择:我们对一家学术医疗中心的电子同意书进行了探索性回顾性病历审查,使用或然率表、逻辑回归和非参数检验来探讨患者和医生特征与同意书之间的关系:我们识别并下载了从 2020 年 9 月到 2022 年期间接受妇科手术的 4000 名患者的电子同意书。同意书与匿名病历信息相关联。在这 4000 名患者中,有 142 人(3.6%)因同意书不完整而被排除在分析之外。在 3858 名患者中,有 308 人(8.0%)不止一次被要求提供 EUA 同意书,其中 46 人的要求不一致。总体而言,3,308 名患者(85.7%)在每次询问时都表示同意,550 名患者(14.2%)至少一次拒绝或限制同意 EUA。九名患者只同意女学生参与,两名患者完全拒绝医学生参与。我们进行了探索性多元逻辑回归分析,探讨了不同患者和医生人口学群体同意率的差异:我们发现,一些患者比另一些患者更有可能拒绝骨盆EUA,这放大了未经同意侵犯私密身体完整性所造成的尊严伤害,并延续了历史上对有色人种和宗教少数群体弱势群体的错误待遇。患者尊重和控制自己身体的权利要求医生认真履行告知患者并征得其同意的道德义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review.

AbstractObjective: We performed this study to examine patients' choices to permit or refuse medical student pelvic examinations under anesthesia (EUAs) during planned gynecologic procedures.

Design: We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of electronic consent forms at a single academic medical center using contingency tables, logistic regression, and nonparametric tests to explore relationships between patient and physician characteristics and consent.

Results: We identified and downloaded electronic consent forms for a census of 4,000 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery from September 2020 through calendar year 2022. Forms were linked to anonymized medical record information. Of the 4,000 patients, 142 (3.6%) were removed from analysis because consent forms were incomplete. Of 3,858 patients, 308 (8.0%) were asked for EUA consent more than once, 46 of whom were not consistent. Overall, 3,308 (85.7%) patients consented every time asked, and 550 (14.2%) refused or limited EUA consent at least once. Nine patients limited their consent to female students, and two patients refused medical student participation at all. We performed exploratory multiple logistic regression analyses exploring differences in rates of consent across patient and physician demographic groups.

Conclusions: We find that some patients are more likely than others to refuse a pelvic EUA, magnifying the dignitary harm from a nonconsensual invasion of intimate bodily integrity and perpetuating historic wrongs visited upon vulnerable people of color and religious minorities. Patients' rights to respect and control over their bodies require that physicians take seriously the ethical obligation to inform their patients and ask them for permission.

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
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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