西班牙医院的实习医生使用什么道德支持来解决道德冲突?

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1007/s11673-023-10276-1
Antonio Blanco Portillo, Rebeca García-Caballero, Diego Real de Asúa, Karmele Olaciregui Dague, Benjamín Herreros
{"title":"西班牙医院的实习医生使用什么道德支持来解决道德冲突?","authors":"Antonio Blanco Portillo, Rebeca García-Caballero, Diego Real de Asúa, Karmele Olaciregui Dague, Benjamín Herreros","doi":"10.1007/s11673-023-10276-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Ethical conflicts generate difficulties in daily clinical activity. Which methods of ethical advice are most frequently used to resolve them among Spanish doctors has not been studied. The objective of this study is to describe what methods hospital internal medicine physicians in Spain use to resolve their ethical doubts and which they consider most useful. Design A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through a voluntary and anonymous survey and distributed through an ad hoc platform of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Measures We measured methods by which to resolve doubts, types of tools sought, frequency of consulting the Clinical Ethics Committees, and satisfaction with resolution of ethical issues. Results Of 261 internists surveyed, 86 per cent resolve their ethical doubts with assistance, the most frequently used method being consultation with colleagues (58.6 per cent), followed by using specific protocols or guides (11.8 per cent) and consultation with experts in bioethics (9.6 per cent). The most preferred tools are the creation of protocols (30.3 per cent) and the establishment of a consultant/expert in bioethics (27.8 per cent). Conclusions Internists in Spain usually seek assistance to resolve their ethical doubts. Consulting colleagues is the most frequently adopted method. The majority regard tools to resolve ethical conflicts as necessary, seeking above all protocols and consultants/experts in bioethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":"285-293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Ethics Support for Resolving Ethical Conflicts Do Internists Use in Spanish Hospitals?\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Blanco Portillo, Rebeca García-Caballero, Diego Real de Asúa, Karmele Olaciregui Dague, Benjamín Herreros\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-023-10276-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Ethical conflicts generate difficulties in daily clinical activity. Which methods of ethical advice are most frequently used to resolve them among Spanish doctors has not been studied. The objective of this study is to describe what methods hospital internal medicine physicians in Spain use to resolve their ethical doubts and which they consider most useful. Design A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through a voluntary and anonymous survey and distributed through an ad hoc platform of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Measures We measured methods by which to resolve doubts, types of tools sought, frequency of consulting the Clinical Ethics Committees, and satisfaction with resolution of ethical issues. Results Of 261 internists surveyed, 86 per cent resolve their ethical doubts with assistance, the most frequently used method being consultation with colleagues (58.6 per cent), followed by using specific protocols or guides (11.8 per cent) and consultation with experts in bioethics (9.6 per cent). The most preferred tools are the creation of protocols (30.3 per cent) and the establishment of a consultant/expert in bioethics (27.8 per cent). Conclusions Internists in Spain usually seek assistance to resolve their ethical doubts. Consulting colleagues is the most frequently adopted method. The majority regard tools to resolve ethical conflicts as necessary, seeking above all protocols and consultants/experts in bioethics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"285-293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10276-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10276-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景伦理冲突给日常临床活动带来困难。在西班牙医生中,哪些道德建议方法最常被用来解决这些问题,目前还没有研究。本研究的目的是描述西班牙的医院内科医师使用什么方法来解决他们的道德疑虑,以及他们认为哪些方法最有用。设计通过一项自愿和匿名调查进行了一项横断面观察性研究,并通过西班牙内科学会的一个特设平台进行了分发。措施我们衡量了解决疑虑的方法、寻求的工具类型、咨询临床伦理委员会的频率以及对伦理问题解决的满意度。结果在接受调查的261名内科医生中,86%的内科医生在帮助下解决了他们的道德疑虑,最常用的方法是与同事协商(58.6%),其次是使用特定的协议或指南(11.8%)和与生物伦理学专家协商(9.6%)。最受欢迎的工具是制定协议(30.3%)和设立生物伦理学顾问/专家(27.8%)。结论西班牙的实习医生通常会寻求帮助来解决他们的道德疑虑。咨询同事是最常用的方法。大多数人认为解决伦理冲突的工具是必要的,他们首先寻求生物伦理方面的协议和顾问/专家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Ethics Support for Resolving Ethical Conflicts Do Internists Use in Spanish Hospitals?

Background Ethical conflicts generate difficulties in daily clinical activity. Which methods of ethical advice are most frequently used to resolve them among Spanish doctors has not been studied. The objective of this study is to describe what methods hospital internal medicine physicians in Spain use to resolve their ethical doubts and which they consider most useful. Design A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through a voluntary and anonymous survey and distributed through an ad hoc platform of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Measures We measured methods by which to resolve doubts, types of tools sought, frequency of consulting the Clinical Ethics Committees, and satisfaction with resolution of ethical issues. Results Of 261 internists surveyed, 86 per cent resolve their ethical doubts with assistance, the most frequently used method being consultation with colleagues (58.6 per cent), followed by using specific protocols or guides (11.8 per cent) and consultation with experts in bioethics (9.6 per cent). The most preferred tools are the creation of protocols (30.3 per cent) and the establishment of a consultant/expert in bioethics (27.8 per cent). Conclusions Internists in Spain usually seek assistance to resolve their ethical doubts. Consulting colleagues is the most frequently adopted method. The majority regard tools to resolve ethical conflicts as necessary, seeking above all protocols and consultants/experts in bioethics.

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 Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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