Suppr超能文献

[医学纪律委员会处罚更频繁、更严厉;一项关于医学纪律法十年的观察性研究]

[Medical disciplinary boards punish more often and more severely; an observational study of 10 years of medical disciplinary law].

作者信息

Pinto-Sietsma S J, Zwinderman A H, Oude Ophuis T

机构信息

Amsterdam UMC, locatie AMC, afd. Klinische epidemiologie, Biostatistiek en Bio-informatica, Amsterdam (tevens: afd. Vasculaire Geneeskunde).

Contact: S.J. Pinto-Sietsma (

出版信息

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2020 Aug 20;164:D4587.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine if the medical disciplinary law in the Netherlands is becoming tougher.

DESIGN

Observational study.

METHOD

We read the annual reports of the Dutch Disciplinary Committees for the Healthcare Sector 2007-2017, and registered the numbers of disciplinary cases and those cases upheld, the measures imposed and the degree of consistency in the event of an appeal. Over 400 medical disciplinary cases were reviewed in more detail. Based on these cases, we determined those variables that increase or decrease the likelihood of conviction, such as the gender of the defendants, the region in which the disciplinary case was heard, and if objective norms and professional practice guidelines had been used in arriving at the verdict.

RESULTS

Each year a disciplinary case is brought against an average of 0.4% of all health care providers - mainly physicians (an average of approximately 1400 disciplinary cases each year). One-third of all disciplinary cases were dealt with in court and about half of them were upheld. Over time, the number of disciplinary cases has increased (36%), as has the percentage of cases that are upheld (27%). Additionally, heavier measures were more often imposed and the degree of consistency between the initial ruling and the ruling on appeal also increased (56%). Those factors that increased the likelihood of a case being upheld were: being a physician of male gender, the disciplinary case being heard in The Hague or Eindhoven, and the non-implementation of an objective norm or professional practice guideline in arriving at the verdict.

CONCLUSION

Since 2007 the Dutch medical disciplinary boards have been punishing more often and more severely. This may be because the subjective demands made on health care professionals have changed. Arriving at an opinion subjectively is not a problem when it comes to verifying compliance with standards of due care. However, if this method is used to determine the penalty, the health care system will become defensive - and this will not improve the quality of care.

摘要

目的

研究荷兰医疗行业纪律法是否变得更加严格。

设计

观察性研究。

方法

我们阅读了荷兰医疗行业纪律委员会2007年至2017年的年度报告,记录了纪律案件数量、维持原判的案件数量、所采取的措施以及上诉时的一致性程度。对400多起医疗纪律案件进行了更详细的审查。基于这些案件,我们确定了那些增加或降低定罪可能性的变量,如被告的性别、纪律案件审理所在地区,以及在做出裁决时是否使用了客观规范和专业实践指南。

结果

每年针对所有医疗服务提供者(主要是医生)平均提起0.4%的纪律案件(每年平均约1400起纪律案件)。所有纪律案件中有三分之一在法庭上处理,其中约一半维持原判。随着时间的推移,纪律案件数量有所增加(36%),维持原判的案件百分比也有所增加(27%)。此外,更常采取更严厉的措施,初审裁决与上诉裁决之间的一致性程度也有所提高(56%)。增加案件维持原判可能性的因素包括:男性医生、在海牙或埃因霍温审理纪律案件,以及在做出裁决时未执行客观规范或专业实践指南。

结论

自2007年以来,荷兰医疗纪律委员会的处罚频率更高、力度更大。这可能是因为对医疗专业人员的主观要求发生了变化。在核实是否符合适当护理标准时,主观形成意见并非问题。然而,如果用这种方法来确定处罚,医疗系统将变得保守,而这并不会提高护理质量。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验