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 , Kym Jenkins , Matthew Spittal , 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 , Kym Jenkins , Matthew Spittal , 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}
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.
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.