Literature DB >> 7827550

Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: a questionnaire study of general practitioners.

N Summerton1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (a) To investigate defensive medical practices among general practitioners; (b) to compare any such practices with general practitioners' understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence and practitioners' concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged.
DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. Each questionnaire was followed by a reminder.
SUBJECTS: 500 systematically selected general practitioners on the membership list of the Medical Defence Union. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Answers to questions on defensive medical practices, understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence, and concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged.
RESULTS: 300 general practitioners returned the questionnaire (response rate 60%). 294 (98%) claimed to have made some practice changes as a result of the possibility of a patient complaining. Of the defensive medical practices adopted, the most common (over half of doctors stating likely or very likely) seemed to be increased diagnostic testing, increased referrals, increased follow up, and more detailed patient explanations and note taking. Respondents practised defensive medicine as a possible consequence of concerns about the risks of being sued or having a complaint lodged. This association was particularly strong for negative defensive practices. Defensive medical practice did not correlate with any misunderstanding about the law of negligence or the general practitioners' terms of service.
CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners are practising defensive medicine. Some defensive practices such as increased patient explanations or more detailed note taking are clearly beneficial. However, implementing the findings of the Wilson report may increase negative defensive medical practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7827550      PMCID: PMC2548439          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.310.6971.27

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  4 in total

1.  Medical litigation and the quality of care.

Authors:  N Black
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-01-06       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: methodological considerations.

Authors:  B Sibbald; J Addington-Hall; D Brenneman; P Freeling
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  The problem of defensive medicine.

Authors:  L R Tancredi; J A Barondess
Journal:  Science       Date:  1978-05-26       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  The medical malpractice crisis--reflections on the alleged causes and proposed cures: discussion paper.

Authors:  J S McQuade
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 18.000

  4 in total
  32 in total

1.  Trends in negative defensive medicine within general practice.

Authors:  N Summerton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Defensive practice among psychiatrists: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  K Passmore; W-C Leung
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Perceptions of risk may explain the discrepancy between patient and clinician-recorded symptoms.

Authors:  Ian Dawson; Victoria Senior; Simon de Lusignan
Journal:  Prim Care Respir J       Date:  2012-06

Review 4.  Act first and look up the law afterward?: medical malpractice and the ethics of defensive medicine.

Authors:  K De Ville
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  1998-12

5.  Defensive medicine practices among gastroenterologists in Japan.

Authors:  Toru Hiyama; Masaharu Yoshihara; Shinji Tanaka; Yuji Urabe; Yoshihiko Ikegami; Tatsuma Fukuhara; Kazuaki Chayama
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Managing risk: a taxonomy of error in health policy.

Authors:  Paul Joyce; Ruth Boaden; Aneez Esmail
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2005-12

Review 7.  Safe discharge: an irrational, unhelpful and unachievable concept.

Authors:  S Goodacre
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Asymptotic medicine.

Authors:  Karmen Loncarek
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.351

9.  Motivation and continuation of professional development.

Authors:  J Miller; J Bligh; I Stanley; A al Shehri
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 10.  Defensive medicine, cost containment, and reform.

Authors:  Laura D Hermer; Howard Brody
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-09       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.