• 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

新西兰药师不当行为的特征和风险因素:一项回顾性全国性分析。

Characteristics and risk factors of pharmacist misconduct in New Zealand: a retrospective nationwide analysis.

机构信息

School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Level 3, Building 503, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Feb 20;24(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10591-2.

DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-10591-2
PMID:38378632
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10880377/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Professional misconduct has evolved into a worldwide concern, involving various forms and types of behaviours that contribute to unsafe practices. This study aimed to provide insights into the patterns characterising pharmacist misconduct and uncover underlying factors contributing to such instances in New Zealand.

METHODS

This research examined all cases of pharmacist misconduct sourced from the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) database in New Zealand since 2004. Characteristics of the sampled pharmacists and cases were extracted, followed by a systematic coding of the observed misconduct issues. Identification of risk factors was accomplished through content analysis techniques, enabling an assessment of their prevalence across various forms of misconduct.

RESULTS

The dataset of pharmacist misconduct cases comprised 58 disciplinary records involving 55 pharmacists. Seven types of misconduct were identified, with the most commonly observed being quality and safety issues related to drug, medication and care, as well as criminal conviction. A total of 13 risk factors were identified and systematically classified into three categories: (1) social, regulatory, and external environmental factors, (2) systematic, organisational, and practical considerations in the pharmacy, and (3) pharmacist individual factors. The most frequently mentioned and far-reaching factors include busyness, heavy workload or distraction; health impairment issues; and life stress or challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The patterns of pharmacist misconduct are complicated, multifaceted, and involve complex interactions among risk factors. Collaborative efforts involving individual pharmacists, professional bodies, responsible authorities, policy-makers, health funders and planners in key areas such as pharmacist workload and well-being are expected to mitigate the occurrence of misconduct. Future research should seek to uncover the origins, manifestations, and underlying relationships of various contributing factors through empirical research with appropriate individuals.

摘要

背景

职业操守失范已成为全球性关注的问题,涉及各种形式和类型的行为,这些行为导致了不安全的实践。本研究旨在深入了解导致药师不当行为的模式,并揭示新西兰此类事件的潜在因素。

方法

本研究从新西兰 2004 年以来的健康从业者纪律审裁处(HPDT)数据库中查阅了所有药师不当行为的案例。提取了抽样药师和案例的特征,然后对观察到的不当行为问题进行系统编码。通过内容分析技术确定风险因素,评估其在各种不当行为形式中的普遍性。

结果

药师不当行为案例数据集包含 58 项纪律处分记录,涉及 55 名药师。确定了 7 种不当行为类型,最常见的是与药物、药物和护理相关的质量和安全问题,以及刑事定罪。共确定了 13 个风险因素,并将其系统地分为三类:(1)社会、监管和外部环境因素;(2)药店的系统、组织和实际考虑因素;(3)药师个人因素。最常被提及和影响深远的因素包括忙碌、工作量大或分心;健康受损问题;以及生活压力或挑战。

结论

药师不当行为的模式复杂、多方面,涉及风险因素之间的复杂相互作用。涉及个体药师、专业机构、责任当局、政策制定者、医疗保健资金提供者和规划者在药师工作量和福祉等关键领域的合作努力有望减少不当行为的发生。未来的研究应通过对适当个人的实证研究,努力揭示各种促成因素的起源、表现和潜在关系。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0dad/10880377/a533e0bc612e/12913_2024_10591_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0dad/10880377/a533e0bc612e/12913_2024_10591_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0dad/10880377/a533e0bc612e/12913_2024_10591_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Characteristics and risk factors of pharmacist misconduct in New Zealand: a retrospective nationwide analysis.新西兰药师不当行为的特征和风险因素:一项回顾性全国性分析。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Feb 20;24(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10591-2.
2
Pharmacist Disciplinary Action: What Do Pharmacists Get in Trouble for?药剂师纪律处分:药剂师因何事受罚?
Healthc Policy. 2023 Feb;18(3):60-71. doi: 10.12927/hcpol.2023.27034.
3
Removal of doctors from practice for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand.在澳大利亚和新西兰,医生因职业不当行为被吊销行医执照。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21(12):1027-33. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000941. Epub 2012 Jul 21.
4
Fifteen Years On: What Patterns Continue to Emerge from New Zealand's Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal?十五年后:新西兰健康从业者纪律审裁处仍呈现出哪些模式?
J Law Med. 2020 Dec;28(1):165-178.
5
Doctors disciplined for professional misconduct in Australia and New Zealand, 2000-2009.2000-2009 年澳大利亚和新西兰因职业不当行为而受到纪律处分的医生。
Med J Aust. 2011 May 2;194(9):452-6. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03058.x.
6
Teachers' Health, Wellbeing and Professional Misconduct. An Exploratory Analysis of Cases from New Zealand's Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal 2017-2018.教师的健康、福祉与职业不当行为。对新西兰教师纪律审裁处2017 - 2018年案例的探索性分析。
J Law Med. 2019 Jul;26(4):922-942.
7
Serious misconduct of health professionals in disciplinary tribunals under the National Law 2010-17.国家法律 2010-17 下纪律审裁处中医疗专业人员的严重不当行为。
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Apr;44(2):190-199. doi: 10.1071/AH18239.
8
Pharmacists subjected to disciplinary action: characteristics and risk factors.受到纪律处分的药剂师:特征与风险因素
Int J Pharm Pract. 2011 Oct;19(5):367-73. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2011.00119.x. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
9
Practitioner Health Issues Featuring Before New Zealand’s Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal: An Analysis of Cases 2003-2014.新西兰健康从业者纪律审裁处受理的从业者健康问题:2003 - 2014年案例分析
J Law Med. 2017;24(3):590-96.
10
Doctors, drugs of dependence and discipline: a retrospective review of disciplinary decisions in New Zealand, 1997-2016.医生、成瘾药物与纪律处分:对1997年至2016年新西兰纪律处分决定的回顾性研究
N Z Med J. 2019 Jan 18;132(1488):49-54.

本文引用的文献

1
Risk identification and prediction of complaints and misconduct against health practitioners: a scoping review.识别和预测针对医疗从业者的投诉和不当行为的风险:范围综述。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 Jan 13;36(1). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzad114.
2
The publication of impaired doctors' identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice, and reform.澳大利亚和新西兰法庭公布有缺陷医生的身份:法律、实践和改革。
Med Law Rev. 2023 Aug 25;31(3):391-423. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwad007.
3
Australian and New Zealand doctors' experiences of disciplinary notifications, investigations, proceedings and interventions relating to alleged mental health impairment: a qualitative analysis of interviews.
澳大利亚和新西兰医生关于与涉嫌心理健康损害相关的纪律通知、调查、程序及干预措施的经历:访谈的定性分析
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2023 Jan-Feb;86:101857. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101857. Epub 2022 Dec 24.
4
A content analysis of contributory factors reported in serious incident investigation reports in hospital care.对医院护理中严重事件调查报告中报告的促成因素进行内容分析。
Clin Med (Lond). 2022 Sep;22(5):423-433. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0042. Epub 2022 Aug 10.
5
Vocational and psychosocial predictors of medical negligence claims among Australian doctors: a prospective cohort analysis of the MABEL survey.澳大利亚医生医疗过失索赔的职业和心理社会预测因素:MABEL 调查的前瞻性队列分析。
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 1;12(6):e055432. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055432.
6
Criminal Convictions of Disciplined Health Practitioners in New Zealand.新西兰受规管的医疗从业者的犯罪定罪情况。
J Law Med. 2022 Mar;29(1):117-128.
7
A Powerful Antidote to Physician Burnout: Intensive Healthy Lifestyle and Positive Psychology Approaches.对抗医生职业倦怠的有力解药:强化健康生活方式与积极心理学方法。
Am J Lifestyle Med. 2021 Apr 21;15(5):563-566. doi: 10.1177/15598276211006626. eCollection 2021 Sep-Oct.
8
Systematic review of the factors and the key indicators that identify doctors at risk of complaints, malpractice claims or impaired performance.系统综述识别易发生投诉、医疗事故索赔或表现不佳的医生的因素和关键指标。
BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 24;11(8):e050377. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050377.
9
Fifteen Years On: What Patterns Continue to Emerge from New Zealand's Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal?十五年后:新西兰健康从业者纪律审裁处仍呈现出哪些模式?
J Law Med. 2020 Dec;28(1):165-178.
10
The Effect of Clinical Volume on Annual and Per-Patient Encounter Medical Malpractice Claims Risk.临床量对年度和每位患者遭遇医疗事故索赔风险的影响。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e995-e1000. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000706.