减少转介堕胎护理的不专业做法:提出最低专业标准。

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Shelly Makleff, Bronwen Merner, Kirsten I Black, Louise Keogh
{"title":"减少转介堕胎护理的不专业做法:提出最低专业标准。","authors":"Shelly Makleff,&nbsp;Bronwen Merner,&nbsp;Kirsten I Black,&nbsp;Louise Keogh","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unprofessional abortion referral practices are a threat to person-centred abortion care. Evidence globally shows that unprofessional abortion referral practices can generate misinformation, communicate judgement, and hinder timely access to care — causing distress and harm to abortion seekers.<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> These harmful referral practices occur across the health care workforce and are not limited to individuals claiming a conscientious objection.<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> This suggests a need to define best practice for abortion referral and encourage professionalism in referral practices. Addressing this gap, this perspective article: (i) applies the principles of medical professionalism to abortion referral, (ii) proposes a minimum standard for professional abortion referral, and (iii) identifies strategies across the health system to promote person-centred referrals.</p><p>Policy discussions around refusal to participate in abortion care (eg, conscientious objection) often focus on whether the health practitioner is willing to refer an abortion seeker to a willing provider.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Refusing practitioners who do refer are assumed to be acting in line with professional standards, while those who do not refer are generally seen as unprofessional and obstructing care. Although this focus on willingness to refer is warranted, particularly as referral is legally obligated in many jurisdictions,<span><sup>5</sup></span> we argue that the act of providing an abortion referral is necessary but not sufficient to meet professional standards. How a referral is carried out is also a critical component of the professional obligations towards abortion seekers.</p><p>Abortion-specific guidelines are clear that practitioners who refuse to participate in abortion should refer their patients onwards. For example, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists <i>Clinical guideline for abortion care</i> states that practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion should “inform the woman how to access the closest provider of abortion services within a clinically reasonable time” and “must not impose delay, distress or health consequences on a woman seeking an abortion”, but does not provide further details.<span><sup>7</sup></span></p><p>Medical codes of conduct provide additional guidance for ethical and professional behaviour, but these are often broadly worded and cover the entire scope of practice. The Medical Board of Australia <i>Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia</i> states that all providers should act in their “patients’ best interests when making referrals” and that their personal views should not “adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make”.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>There is also specific guidance for conscientious objection. The Australian Medical Association's position statement on conscientious objection tells practitioners to treat patients with “dignity and respect”, “minimise disruption to patient care”, and not “impede patients’ access to care”.<span><sup>9</sup></span> The code of conduct similarly states that a doctor's conscientious objection should not “impede access to treatments that are legal”.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>Despite the relevance of this guidance, there is ample evidence of a disconnect between real-world abortion referral practices<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> and the principles outlined in professional codes of conduct and clinical guidelines (Box 1).<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that practitioners refer patients for abortion in a professional manner.</p><p>Applying principles of medical professionalism to abortion referrals, we present a spectrum of practices, from refusal to refer to person-centred referral, and propose a minimum standard for professional abortion referral (Box 2).</p><p>The importance of person-centred referral can be reinforced at various levels across the health system.</p><p>Professional bodies have a critical role in articulating and enforcing professional standards and codes of conduct — with a focus on regulating medical professionalism rather than over-regulating abortion. Medical guidelines should clearly articulate standards for professional abortion referral practices. Medical education should train future providers on person-centred referral, including through values clarification approaches. Colleges and training pathways can provide practical training. This is particularly relevant in general practice, the discipline responsible for most referrals in Australia.<span><sup>13</sup></span> Government regulators, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra), have a responsibility to develop effective reporting and enforcement mechanisms for individuals who avoid their professional obligations for abortion referral. All of these actors should also ensure that clear referral pathways for abortion exist and are shared with health practitioners, to facilitate professional referral practices.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Health service policies and management can ensure that all staff are aware of their professional and legal obligations to refer respectfully for abortion. They can support practitioners to recognise person-centred referral as part of high quality care. Across the health system, person-centred referral could become a measure of quality or performance. Quality improvement interventions can promote respectful referral practices grounded in empathy, a core principle of person-centred care.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Strategies to promote empathy can draw on evidence that abortion seekers fear being judged, are unsure about their options, and are worried about whether they will be able to access the time-sensitive service.<span><sup>2-4, 6</sup></span> This type of information can be integrated into stigma-reduction approaches such as values clarification workshops, which support health practitioners to consider their professional responsibilities towards abortion seekers.<span><sup>15</sup></span></p><p>At the individual health practitioner level, anyone providing referrals can reflect on whether they are — intentionally or unintentionally — referring in a way that does not fit with person-centred care principles. There may be a role for bystander interventions in which health practitioners who hear about unprofessional referrals can share resources about the harms of unprofessional referral and support colleagues to understand the minimum standards for abortion referral.</p><p>Unprofessional referral practices undermine equitable access to person-centred abortion care. In this perspective article, we have argued the importance of encouraging all health practitioners, regardless of objector status, to move along the spectrum towards person-centred referral. Importantly, the specifics of how to achieve this will vary depending on medical guidelines, legal context, and institutional environment. This is a call for professional bodies, regulators, medical colleges, medical education, and the health system to integrate guidance on professional abortion referral practices and ensure these standards are monitored and enforced.</p><p>Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley - The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p><p>Kirsten Black is chair of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Sexual and Reproductive Health Special Interest Group.</p><p>Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.</p><p>Makleff S: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Merner B: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Black KI: Interpretation, writing – review and editing. Keogh L: Interpretation, writing – review and editing.</p>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"223 7","pages":"346-349"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing unprofessional practices in referrals to abortion care: proposing a minimum professional standard\",\"authors\":\"Shelly Makleff,&nbsp;Bronwen Merner,&nbsp;Kirsten I Black,&nbsp;Louise Keogh\",\"doi\":\"10.5694/mja2.70043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Unprofessional abortion referral practices are a threat to person-centred abortion care. Evidence globally shows that unprofessional abortion referral practices can generate misinformation, communicate judgement, and hinder timely access to care — causing distress and harm to abortion seekers.<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> These harmful referral practices occur across the health care workforce and are not limited to individuals claiming a conscientious objection.<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> This suggests a need to define best practice for abortion referral and encourage professionalism in referral practices. Addressing this gap, this perspective article: (i) applies the principles of medical professionalism to abortion referral, (ii) proposes a minimum standard for professional abortion referral, and (iii) identifies strategies across the health system to promote person-centred referrals.</p><p>Policy discussions around refusal to participate in abortion care (eg, conscientious objection) often focus on whether the health practitioner is willing to refer an abortion seeker to a willing provider.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Refusing practitioners who do refer are assumed to be acting in line with professional standards, while those who do not refer are generally seen as unprofessional and obstructing care. Although this focus on willingness to refer is warranted, particularly as referral is legally obligated in many jurisdictions,<span><sup>5</sup></span> we argue that the act of providing an abortion referral is necessary but not sufficient to meet professional standards. How a referral is carried out is also a critical component of the professional obligations towards abortion seekers.</p><p>Abortion-specific guidelines are clear that practitioners who refuse to participate in abortion should refer their patients onwards. For example, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists <i>Clinical guideline for abortion care</i> states that practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion should “inform the woman how to access the closest provider of abortion services within a clinically reasonable time” and “must not impose delay, distress or health consequences on a woman seeking an abortion”, but does not provide further details.<span><sup>7</sup></span></p><p>Medical codes of conduct provide additional guidance for ethical and professional behaviour, but these are often broadly worded and cover the entire scope of practice. The Medical Board of Australia <i>Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia</i> states that all providers should act in their “patients’ best interests when making referrals” and that their personal views should not “adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make”.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>There is also specific guidance for conscientious objection. The Australian Medical Association's position statement on conscientious objection tells practitioners to treat patients with “dignity and respect”, “minimise disruption to patient care”, and not “impede patients’ access to care”.<span><sup>9</sup></span> The code of conduct similarly states that a doctor's conscientious objection should not “impede access to treatments that are legal”.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>Despite the relevance of this guidance, there is ample evidence of a disconnect between real-world abortion referral practices<span><sup>1-6</sup></span> and the principles outlined in professional codes of conduct and clinical guidelines (Box 1).<span><sup>7-9</sup></span> Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that practitioners refer patients for abortion in a professional manner.</p><p>Applying principles of medical professionalism to abortion referrals, we present a spectrum of practices, from refusal to refer to person-centred referral, and propose a minimum standard for professional abortion referral (Box 2).</p><p>The importance of person-centred referral can be reinforced at various levels across the health system.</p><p>Professional bodies have a critical role in articulating and enforcing professional standards and codes of conduct — with a focus on regulating medical professionalism rather than over-regulating abortion. Medical guidelines should clearly articulate standards for professional abortion referral practices. Medical education should train future providers on person-centred referral, including through values clarification approaches. Colleges and training pathways can provide practical training. This is particularly relevant in general practice, the discipline responsible for most referrals in Australia.<span><sup>13</sup></span> Government regulators, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra), have a responsibility to develop effective reporting and enforcement mechanisms for individuals who avoid their professional obligations for abortion referral. All of these actors should also ensure that clear referral pathways for abortion exist and are shared with health practitioners, to facilitate professional referral practices.<span><sup>13</sup></span></p><p>Health service policies and management can ensure that all staff are aware of their professional and legal obligations to refer respectfully for abortion. They can support practitioners to recognise person-centred referral as part of high quality care. Across the health system, person-centred referral could become a measure of quality or performance. Quality improvement interventions can promote respectful referral practices grounded in empathy, a core principle of person-centred care.<span><sup>14</sup></span> Strategies to promote empathy can draw on evidence that abortion seekers fear being judged, are unsure about their options, and are worried about whether they will be able to access the time-sensitive service.<span><sup>2-4, 6</sup></span> This type of information can be integrated into stigma-reduction approaches such as values clarification workshops, which support health practitioners to consider their professional responsibilities towards abortion seekers.<span><sup>15</sup></span></p><p>At the individual health practitioner level, anyone providing referrals can reflect on whether they are — intentionally or unintentionally — referring in a way that does not fit with person-centred care principles. There may be a role for bystander interventions in which health practitioners who hear about unprofessional referrals can share resources about the harms of unprofessional referral and support colleagues to understand the minimum standards for abortion referral.</p><p>Unprofessional referral practices undermine equitable access to person-centred abortion care. In this perspective article, we have argued the importance of encouraging all health practitioners, regardless of objector status, to move along the spectrum towards person-centred referral. Importantly, the specifics of how to achieve this will vary depending on medical guidelines, legal context, and institutional environment. This is a call for professional bodies, regulators, medical colleges, medical education, and the health system to integrate guidance on professional abortion referral practices and ensure these standards are monitored and enforced.</p><p>Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley - The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p><p>Kirsten Black is chair of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Sexual and Reproductive Health Special Interest Group.</p><p>Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.</p><p>Makleff S: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Merner B: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Black KI: Interpretation, writing – review and editing. Keogh L: Interpretation, writing – review and editing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"volume\":\"223 7\",\"pages\":\"346-349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.70043\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.70043\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.70043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

他们可以支持从业者认识到以人为本的转诊是高质量护理的一部分。在整个卫生系统中,以人为中心的转诊可以成为质量或绩效的衡量标准。质量改进干预措施可以促进以移情为基础的尊重转诊实践,移情是以人为本的护理的核心原则促进移情的策略可以借鉴以下证据:寻求堕胎的人害怕被评判,不确定自己的选择,并担心自己能否获得这项时间敏感的服务。2- 4,6这类信息可纳入减少耻辱感的方法,如价值观澄清讲习班,支持保健从业人员考虑其对寻求堕胎者的专业责任。15 .在个人保健从业人员一级,任何提供转诊的人都可以反思他们是否有意或无意地以不符合以人为本的护理原则的方式转诊。旁观者干预的作用可能是,听到不专业转诊的卫生从业人员可以分享有关不专业转诊的危害的资源,并支持同事了解堕胎转诊的最低标准。不专业的转诊做法破坏了公平获得以人为本的堕胎护理的机会。在这篇观点文章中,我们讨论了鼓励所有卫生从业人员,无论其反对地位如何,朝着以人为本的转诊方向发展的重要性。重要的是,如何实现这一目标的具体细节将因医疗指南、法律背景和制度环境而异。这是一项呼吁,要求专业机构、监管机构、医学院、医学教育和卫生系统整合关于专业堕胎转诊做法的指导,并确保这些标准得到监测和执行。开放获取出版由墨尔本大学促进,作为Wiley -墨尔本大学协议的一部分,通过澳大利亚大学图书馆员理事会。克尔斯滕·布莱克(Kirsten Black)是澳大利亚和新西兰皇家妇产科医师学院性与生殖健康特别兴趣小组的主席。不是委托;外部同行评审。概念化,写作-原稿,写作-审查和编辑。概念化,写作-原稿,写作-审查和编辑。黑KI:口译,写作-审查和编辑。基奥L:口译,写作-评论和编辑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reducing unprofessional practices in referrals to abortion care: proposing a minimum professional standard

Reducing unprofessional practices in referrals to abortion care: proposing a minimum professional standard

Unprofessional abortion referral practices are a threat to person-centred abortion care. Evidence globally shows that unprofessional abortion referral practices can generate misinformation, communicate judgement, and hinder timely access to care — causing distress and harm to abortion seekers.1-6 These harmful referral practices occur across the health care workforce and are not limited to individuals claiming a conscientious objection.1-6 This suggests a need to define best practice for abortion referral and encourage professionalism in referral practices. Addressing this gap, this perspective article: (i) applies the principles of medical professionalism to abortion referral, (ii) proposes a minimum standard for professional abortion referral, and (iii) identifies strategies across the health system to promote person-centred referrals.

Policy discussions around refusal to participate in abortion care (eg, conscientious objection) often focus on whether the health practitioner is willing to refer an abortion seeker to a willing provider.5 Refusing practitioners who do refer are assumed to be acting in line with professional standards, while those who do not refer are generally seen as unprofessional and obstructing care. Although this focus on willingness to refer is warranted, particularly as referral is legally obligated in many jurisdictions,5 we argue that the act of providing an abortion referral is necessary but not sufficient to meet professional standards. How a referral is carried out is also a critical component of the professional obligations towards abortion seekers.

Abortion-specific guidelines are clear that practitioners who refuse to participate in abortion should refer their patients onwards. For example, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical guideline for abortion care states that practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion should “inform the woman how to access the closest provider of abortion services within a clinically reasonable time” and “must not impose delay, distress or health consequences on a woman seeking an abortion”, but does not provide further details.7

Medical codes of conduct provide additional guidance for ethical and professional behaviour, but these are often broadly worded and cover the entire scope of practice. The Medical Board of Australia Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia states that all providers should act in their “patients’ best interests when making referrals” and that their personal views should not “adversely affect the care of your patient or the referrals you make”.8

There is also specific guidance for conscientious objection. The Australian Medical Association's position statement on conscientious objection tells practitioners to treat patients with “dignity and respect”, “minimise disruption to patient care”, and not “impede patients’ access to care”.9 The code of conduct similarly states that a doctor's conscientious objection should not “impede access to treatments that are legal”.8

Despite the relevance of this guidance, there is ample evidence of a disconnect between real-world abortion referral practices1-6 and the principles outlined in professional codes of conduct and clinical guidelines (Box 1).7-9 Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that practitioners refer patients for abortion in a professional manner.

Applying principles of medical professionalism to abortion referrals, we present a spectrum of practices, from refusal to refer to person-centred referral, and propose a minimum standard for professional abortion referral (Box 2).

The importance of person-centred referral can be reinforced at various levels across the health system.

Professional bodies have a critical role in articulating and enforcing professional standards and codes of conduct — with a focus on regulating medical professionalism rather than over-regulating abortion. Medical guidelines should clearly articulate standards for professional abortion referral practices. Medical education should train future providers on person-centred referral, including through values clarification approaches. Colleges and training pathways can provide practical training. This is particularly relevant in general practice, the discipline responsible for most referrals in Australia.13 Government regulators, such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra), have a responsibility to develop effective reporting and enforcement mechanisms for individuals who avoid their professional obligations for abortion referral. All of these actors should also ensure that clear referral pathways for abortion exist and are shared with health practitioners, to facilitate professional referral practices.13

Health service policies and management can ensure that all staff are aware of their professional and legal obligations to refer respectfully for abortion. They can support practitioners to recognise person-centred referral as part of high quality care. Across the health system, person-centred referral could become a measure of quality or performance. Quality improvement interventions can promote respectful referral practices grounded in empathy, a core principle of person-centred care.14 Strategies to promote empathy can draw on evidence that abortion seekers fear being judged, are unsure about their options, and are worried about whether they will be able to access the time-sensitive service.2-4, 6 This type of information can be integrated into stigma-reduction approaches such as values clarification workshops, which support health practitioners to consider their professional responsibilities towards abortion seekers.15

At the individual health practitioner level, anyone providing referrals can reflect on whether they are — intentionally or unintentionally — referring in a way that does not fit with person-centred care principles. There may be a role for bystander interventions in which health practitioners who hear about unprofessional referrals can share resources about the harms of unprofessional referral and support colleagues to understand the minimum standards for abortion referral.

Unprofessional referral practices undermine equitable access to person-centred abortion care. In this perspective article, we have argued the importance of encouraging all health practitioners, regardless of objector status, to move along the spectrum towards person-centred referral. Importantly, the specifics of how to achieve this will vary depending on medical guidelines, legal context, and institutional environment. This is a call for professional bodies, regulators, medical colleges, medical education, and the health system to integrate guidance on professional abortion referral practices and ensure these standards are monitored and enforced.

Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Melbourne, as part of the Wiley - The University of Melbourne agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

Kirsten Black is chair of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Sexual and Reproductive Health Special Interest Group.

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Makleff S: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Merner B: Conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Black KI: Interpretation, writing – review and editing. Keogh L: Interpretation, writing – review and editing.

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 Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信