澳大利亚和新西兰医生在与所谓精神健康损害有关的纪律通知、调查、诉讼和干预方面的经验:访谈的定性分析

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Owen Bradfield , Kym Jenkins , Matthew Spittal , Marie Bismark
{"title":"澳大利亚和新西兰医生在与所谓精神健康损害有关的纪律通知、调查、诉讼和干预方面的经验:访谈的定性分析","authors":"Owen Bradfield ,&nbsp;Kym Jenkins ,&nbsp;Matthew Spittal ,&nbsp;Marie Bismark","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When poor mental health impairs a doctor's ability to safely practise medicine, poor patient outcomes can result. Medical regulators play a critical role in protecting the public from impaired doctors, by requiring monitoring and treatment. However, regulatory processes may paradoxically harm doctors, with potential adverse implications for the community. There is little prior research examining the experiences of doctors with prior mental health or substance use challenges who are subject to regulatory notifications and processes relating to their health. Therefore, we explored this issue through the thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants reported that mandated treatment improved aspects of their health, but that fear of regulatory processes delayed them seeking treatment. Participants recognised being significantly unwell at the time of regulatory notification. Participants told us that regulatory processes triggered psychological distress, symptom relapse, and adverse financial and vocational implications. They also told us that these processes eroded their trust in regulators and regulatory processes. To improve health outcomes for unwell doctors and to create safer healthcare for the community, we propose: 1) greater awareness and education of the medical profession about the thresholds and requirements for mandatory reporting of health impairment; 2) better integrating specialised doctors' health services into existing regulatory pathways; and 3) adoption of a more therapeutic approach to regulation by medical regulators.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australian and New Zealand doctors' experiences of disciplinary notifications, investigations, proceedings and interventions relating to alleged mental health impairment: a qualitative analysis of interviews\",\"authors\":\"Owen Bradfield ,&nbsp;Kym Jenkins ,&nbsp;Matthew Spittal ,&nbsp;Marie Bismark\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>When poor mental health impairs a doctor's ability to safely practise medicine, poor patient outcomes can result. Medical regulators play a critical role in protecting the public from impaired doctors, by requiring monitoring and treatment. However, regulatory processes may paradoxically harm doctors, with potential adverse implications for the community. There is little prior research examining the experiences of doctors with prior mental health or substance use challenges who are subject to regulatory notifications and processes relating to their health. Therefore, we explored this issue through the thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants reported that mandated treatment improved aspects of their health, but that fear of regulatory processes delayed them seeking treatment. Participants recognised being significantly unwell at the time of regulatory notification. Participants told us that regulatory processes triggered psychological distress, symptom relapse, and adverse financial and vocational implications. They also told us that these processes eroded their trust in regulators and regulatory processes. To improve health outcomes for unwell doctors and to create safer healthcare for the community, we propose: 1) greater awareness and education of the medical profession about the thresholds and requirements for mandatory reporting of health impairment; 2) better integrating specialised doctors' health services into existing regulatory pathways; and 3) adoption of a more therapeutic approach to regulation by medical regulators.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252722000838\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252722000838","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

当不良的心理健康状况损害医生安全行医的能力时,就会导致患者预后不佳。医疗监管机构通过要求监测和治疗,在保护公众免受医生伤害方面发挥着关键作用。然而,监管过程可能会自相矛盾地伤害医生,对社会产生潜在的不利影响。很少有先前的研究检查医生的经验,先前有精神健康或物质使用方面的挑战,谁是受监管通知和程序与他们的健康。因此,我们通过半结构化定性访谈的主题分析来探讨这个问题。参与者报告说,强制治疗改善了他们健康的各个方面,但对监管程序的恐惧推迟了他们寻求治疗的时间。参与者在监管通知时被确认为严重不适。参与者告诉我们,监管过程引发了心理困扰,症状复发,以及不利的经济和职业影响。他们还告诉我们,这些过程侵蚀了他们对监管机构和监管程序的信任。为了改善身体不适的医生的健康状况,并为社区创造更安全的医疗保健,我们建议:1)提高医疗专业人员对强制性报告健康损害的阈值和要求的认识和教育;2)更好地将专科医生的医疗服务纳入现有的监管途径;3)医疗监管机构采用更具治疗性的监管方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Australian and New Zealand doctors' experiences of disciplinary notifications, investigations, proceedings and interventions relating to alleged mental health impairment: a qualitative analysis of interviews

When poor mental health impairs a doctor's ability to safely practise medicine, poor patient outcomes can result. Medical regulators play a critical role in protecting the public from impaired doctors, by requiring monitoring and treatment. However, regulatory processes may paradoxically harm doctors, with potential adverse implications for the community. There is little prior research examining the experiences of doctors with prior mental health or substance use challenges who are subject to regulatory notifications and processes relating to their health. Therefore, we explored this issue through the thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants reported that mandated treatment improved aspects of their health, but that fear of regulatory processes delayed them seeking treatment. Participants recognised being significantly unwell at the time of regulatory notification. Participants told us that regulatory processes triggered psychological distress, symptom relapse, and adverse financial and vocational implications. They also told us that these processes eroded their trust in regulators and regulatory processes. To improve health outcomes for unwell doctors and to create safer healthcare for the community, we propose: 1) greater awareness and education of the medical profession about the thresholds and requirements for mandatory reporting of health impairment; 2) better integrating specialised doctors' health services into existing regulatory pathways; and 3) adoption of a more therapeutic approach to regulation by medical regulators.

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
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.
×
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