Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Mar 4;23(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00755-2.
Defensive practice occurs when physicians provide services, such as tests, treatments and referrals, mainly to reduce their perceived legal or reputational risks, rather than to advance patient care. This behaviour is counter to physicians' ethical responsibilities, yet is widely reported in surveys of doctors in various countries. There is a lack of qualitative research on the drivers of defensive practice, which is needed to inform strategies to prevent this ethically problematic behaviour.
A qualitative interview study investigated the views and experiences of physicians in Australia on defensive practice and its contribution to low value care. Interviewees were recruited based on interest in medico-legal issues or experience in a health service involved in 'Choosing Wisely' initiatives. Semi-structured interviews averaged 60 min in length. Data were coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework, which encapsulates theories of behaviour and behaviour change.
All participants (n = 17) perceived defensive practice as a problem and a contributor to low value care. Behavioural drivers of defensive practice spanned seven domains in the TDF: knowledge, focused on inadequate knowledge of the law and the risks of low value care; skills, emphasising patient communication and clinical decision-making skills; professional role and identity, particularly clinicians' perception of patient expectations and concern for their professional reputation; beliefs about consequences, especially perceptions of the beneficial and harmful consequences of defensive practice; environmental context and resources, including processes for handling patient complaints; social influences, focused on group norms that encourage or discourage defensive behaviour; and emotions, especially fear of missing a diagnosis. Overall, defensive practice is motivated by physicians' desire to avoid criticism or scrutiny from a range of sources, and censure from their professional peers can be a more potent driver than perceived legal consequences.
The findings call for strengthening knowledge and skills, for example, to improve clinicians' understanding of the law and their awareness of the risks of low value care and using effective communication strategies with patients. Importantly, supportive cultures of practice and organisational environments are needed to create conditions in which clinicians feel confident in avoiding defensive practice and other forms of low value care.
当医生提供服务,如检查、治疗和转诊,主要是为了降低他们感知到的法律或声誉风险,而不是为了促进患者护理时,就会出现防御性医疗行为。这种行为违反了医生的道德责任,但在对各国医生的调查中广泛报道。缺乏关于防御性医疗行为驱动因素的定性研究,这对于制定预防这种有道德问题的行为的策略是必要的。
一项定性访谈研究调查了澳大利亚医生对防御性医疗行为及其对低价值医疗的贡献的看法和经验。受访者是根据对医学法律问题的兴趣或参与“明智选择”计划的医疗服务经验招募的。半结构化访谈平均时长为 60 分钟。数据使用理论领域框架进行编码,该框架包含行为和行为改变理论。
所有参与者(n=17)都认为防御性医疗行为是一个问题,也是低价值医疗的一个促成因素。防御性医疗行为的行为驱动因素跨越了 TDF 的七个领域:知识,侧重于对法律和低价值医疗风险的了解不足;技能,强调患者沟通和临床决策技能;专业角色和身份,特别是临床医生对患者期望和对自己职业声誉的关注;对后果的信念,特别是对防御性医疗行为的有益和有害后果的看法;环境背景和资源,包括处理患者投诉的流程;社会影响,侧重于鼓励或阻止防御性行为的群体规范;和情绪,尤其是害怕漏诊。总体而言,防御性医疗行为的动机是医生避免来自各种来源的批评或审查的愿望,来自同行的谴责比感知到的法律后果更能成为驱动力。
调查结果呼吁加强知识和技能,例如,提高临床医生对法律的理解以及对低价值医疗风险的认识,并与患者使用有效的沟通策略。重要的是,需要建立支持性的实践文化和组织环境,为临床医生创造避免防御性医疗行为和其他形式的低价值医疗的条件。