论迟到:全科医学中落后于计划的伦理问题。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Richard C. Armitage
{"title":"论迟到:全科医学中落后于计划的伦理问题。","authors":"Richard C. Armitage","doi":"10.1111/jep.14293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings and Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party—either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients’ clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively ‘catching up’ in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients’ clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice\",\"authors\":\"Richard C. Armitage\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings and Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party—either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients’ clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively ‘catching up’ in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients’ clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664903/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14293\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:至少在英国,全科医生经常在他们的诊所落后于计划。这种迟到本身就是一个道德问题,因为它会产生负面后果。方法:本文概述了这些负面后果,试图对这些迟到的主要原因进行分类,探讨了这些原因中的每一个的伦理地位,并提出了如何管理负面后果的建议。发现与讨论:迟到的主要原因可分为gp相关、患者相关和第三方相关。在全科实践中,迟到的主要负面后果可能被归类为对质量和安全护理的潜在干扰,对后续患者的不满和不便,以及及时护理的中断。这些负面后果必须由某些人来承担——要么是与迟到原因有关的病人,要么是与迟到原因无关的其他病人。虽然管理这种迟到的严格平等方法没有考虑到患者的临床需求,但全科医生通过积极地“赶上”他们的诊所来补偿,会威胁到护理的质量和安全。本文主张尽量减少迟到对各方的负面影响,同时促进患者临床需求方面的公平。探讨了在一般实践中迟到的每个主要原因的道德地位,并就如何管理每个原因提供了建议,以尽量减少负面后果并促进公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice

Introduction

GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.

Methods

The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.

Findings and Discussion

The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party—either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients’ clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively ‘catching up’ in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients’ clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.

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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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