• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

关于分诊急诊科正式公平性要求的提案:公开性、可及性、相关性、可标准化性和问责制。

A proposal for formal fairness requirements in triage emergency departments: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability.

作者信息

Battisti Davide, Camporesi Silvia

机构信息

Department of Law, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2023 Aug 24. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109188.

DOI:10.1136/jme-2023-109188
PMID:37620136
Abstract

This paper puts forward a wish list of requirements for formal fairness in the specific context of triage in emergency departments (EDs) and maps the empirical and conceptual research questions that need to be addressed in this context in the near future. The pandemic has brought to the fore the necessity for public debate about how to allocate resources fairly in a situation of great shortage. However, issues of fairness arise also outside of pandemics: decisions about how to allocate resources are structurally unavoidable in healthcare systems, as value judgements underlie every allocative decision, although they are not always easily identifiable. In this paper, we set out to bridge this gap in the context of EDs. In the first part, we propose five formal requirements specifically applied for ED triage to be considered fair and legitimate: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability. In the second part of the paper, we map the conceptual and empirical ethics questions that will need to be investigated to assess whether healthcare systems guarantee a formally just ED triage. In conclusion, we argue that there is a vast research landscape in need of an in-depth conceptual and empirical investigation in the context of ED triage in ordinary times. Addressing both types of questions in this context is vital for promoting a fair and legitimate ED triage and for fostering reflection on formal fairness allocative issues beyond triage.

摘要

本文提出了在急诊科分诊这一特定背景下实现形式公平的一系列要求,并梳理了在不久的将来在此背景下需要解决的实证研究和概念性研究问题。疫情凸显了就如何在资源极度短缺的情况下公平分配资源展开公开辩论的必要性。然而,公平问题在疫情之外也会出现:在医疗系统中,关于如何分配资源的决策在结构上是不可避免的,因为每一项分配决策都有价值判断作为基础,尽管这些价值判断并非总是易于识别。在本文中,我们着手在急诊科的背景下弥合这一差距。在第一部分,我们提出了适用于急诊科分诊的五项形式要求,以使其被视为公平且合理:公开性、可及性、相关性、可标准化性和问责制。在本文的第二部分,我们梳理了概念性和实证性伦理问题,这些问题需要进行调查,以评估医疗系统是否保证了形式上公正的急诊科分诊。总之,我们认为,在平时急诊科分诊的背景下,有一个广阔的研究领域需要进行深入的概念性和实证性研究。在这种背景下解决这两类问题对于促进公平合理的急诊科分诊以及推动对分诊之外的形式公平分配问题的反思至关重要。

相似文献

1
A proposal for formal fairness requirements in triage emergency departments: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability.关于分诊急诊科正式公平性要求的提案:公开性、可及性、相关性、可标准化性和问责制。
J Med Ethics. 2023 Aug 24. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109188.
2
How to Fairly Allocate Scarce Medical Resources: Ethical Argumentation under Scrutiny by Health Professionals and Lay People.如何公平分配稀缺医疗资源:健康专业人员和普通民众审视下的伦理论证
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 27;11(7):e0159086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159086. eCollection 2016.
3
Emergency care, triage, and fairness.急救、分诊和公平。
Bioethics. 2020 Jun;34(5):450-458. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12689. Epub 2019 Nov 13.
4
Beyond Individual Triage: Regional Allocation of Life-Saving Resources such as Ventilators in Public Health Emergencies.超越个体分诊:突发公共卫生事件中救命资源(如呼吸机)的区域分配。
Health Care Anal. 2021 Dec;29(4):263-282. doi: 10.1007/s10728-020-00427-5. Epub 2021 Feb 6.
5
Cost reduction strategies for emergency services: insurance role, practice changes and patients accountability.降低急诊服务成本的策略:保险的作用、实践的改变和患者的责任。
Health Care Anal. 2009 Mar;17(1):1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10728-008-0081-0. Epub 2008 Feb 28.
6
Ethicists, doctors and triage decisions: who should decide? And on what basis?伦理学家、医生与分诊决策:该由谁来做决定?基于何种依据?
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106499.
7
Mass casualty management of a large-scale bioterrorist event: an epidemiological approach that shapes triage decisions.大规模生物恐怖事件的大规模伤亡管理:一种影响分诊决策的流行病学方法。
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2002 May;20(2):409-36. doi: 10.1016/s0733-8627(01)00008-6.
8
Clinical decisions using the National Triage Scale: how important is postgraduate education?使用国家分诊量表的临床决策:研究生教育有多重要?
Accid Emerg Nurs. 2001 Apr;9(2):101-8. doi: 10.1054/aaen.2000.0209.
9
Revised Triage and Surveillance Protocols for Temporary Emergency Department Closures in Tertiary Hospitals as a Response to COVID-19 Crisis in Daegu Metropolitan City.大邱广域市应对 COVID-19 危机的三级医院临时急诊部门关闭的修订分诊和监测方案。
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 May 18;35(19):e189. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e189.
10
Impact of the ABCDE triage in primary care emergency department on the number of patient visits to different parts of the health care system in Espoo City.ABCDE 分诊在初级保健急诊部门对埃斯波市不同医疗保健系统部分就诊人数的影响。
BMC Emerg Med. 2012 Jan 4;12:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-227X-12-2.

引用本文的文献

1
Who decides who goes first? Taking democracy seriously in micro-allocative healthcare decisions.谁来决定谁先接受治疗?在微观医疗资源分配决策中认真对待民主。
Med Health Care Philos. 2025 Jun;28(2):327-337. doi: 10.1007/s11019-025-10263-w. Epub 2025 Mar 15.
2
Assessing triage efficiency in Italy: a comparative study using simulated cases among nurses.评估意大利的分诊效率:一项在护士中使用模拟病例的比较研究。
Intern Emerg Med. 2024 Aug 6. doi: 10.1007/s11739-024-03735-z.