OBJECTIVE: To describe Ontario emergency physicians' knowledge of colleagues' sexual involvement with patients and former patients, their own personal experience of such involvement, and their attitudes toward postvisit relationships. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency physicians practising in Ontario. RESULTS: Of 974 eligible mailed surveys, 599 (61.5%) were returned. Of these respondents, 52 (8.7%) reported being aware of a colleague in emergency practice who had been sexually involved with a patient or former patient. When describing their own behaviour, 37 respondents (6.2%) reported sexual involvement with a former patient. However, of this group, only 9 (25.0%) had met the patient in an emergency department. Thus, of the total number of respondents, only 1.5% (9/599) reported sexual involvement arising out of an emergency department visit. Most respondents (82.4%) agreed that it is inappropriate behaviour to ask a patient for a date after an emergency assessment and before the patient's departure, and 66.4% felt that it is inappropriate to contact the patient after discharge. However, only 10.6% believed it to be unacceptable to request a social meeting after encountering a patient previously cared for in the emergency department in a nonprofessional setting. Most respondents (96.5%) did not believe that sexual involvement could ever be therapeutic for the patient. However, only 66% felt that it was always an abuse of power and 62.4% supported zero tolerance of all sexual involvement between physicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vague regulatory guidelines currently in place have failed to dispel confusion regarding what is acceptable social behaviour for physicians providing emergency care. Our results support the need for clarification, and suggest a basis for guidelines that would be acceptable to the emergency medical community: that an emergency visit should not form the basis for the initiation of personal or sexual relationships, yet neither should it preclude their development in nonmedical settings.
OBJECTIVE: To describe Ontario emergency physicians' knowledge of colleagues' sexual involvement with patients and former patients, their own personal experience of such involvement, and their attitudes toward postvisit relationships. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency physicians practising in Ontario. RESULTS: Of 974 eligible mailed surveys, 599 (61.5%) were returned. Of these respondents, 52 (8.7%) reported being aware of a colleague in emergency practice who had been sexually involved with a patient or former patient. When describing their own behaviour, 37 respondents (6.2%) reported sexual involvement with a former patient. However, of this group, only 9 (25.0%) had met the patient in an emergency department. Thus, of the total number of respondents, only 1.5% (9/599) reported sexual involvement arising out of an emergency department visit. Most respondents (82.4%) agreed that it is inappropriate behaviour to ask a patient for a date after an emergency assessment and before the patient's departure, and 66.4% felt that it is inappropriate to contact the patient after discharge. However, only 10.6% believed it to be unacceptable to request a social meeting after encountering a patient previously cared for in the emergency department in a nonprofessional setting. Most respondents (96.5%) did not believe that sexual involvement could ever be therapeutic for the patient. However, only 66% felt that it was always an abuse of power and 62.4% supported zero tolerance of all sexual involvement between physicians and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Vague regulatory guidelines currently in place have failed to dispel confusion regarding what is acceptable social behaviour for physicians providing emergency care. Our results support the need for clarification, and suggest a basis for guidelines that would be acceptable to the emergency medical community: that an emergency visit should not form the basis for the initiation of personal or sexual relationships, yet neither should it preclude their development in nonmedical settings.