Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/15248445
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
12
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2004-7-13
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
From January 2000, the Council of State has harmonised the jurisprudence with the Court of Appeal, changing the responsibility of medical practitioners by requiring them to provide proof that information was both given and understood by their patients. This obligation to inform patients raises several questions: who should give the information? to whom should the information be addressed? how can proof of this information be provided? what should the information be? The authors sent a questionnaire to practicing cardiologists by the internet site of the French Society of Cardiology from the 1st December 2002 to 15th January 2003. Three hundred and thirty-two replies were received of which 305 could be exploited. The activities of the cardiologists who replied were mainly in public hospitals (51.8%), private (18.2%) or mixed (30%). Patient information was mainly performed before invasive procedures, especially coronary angiography (90%) or cardiac pacing (77.3%). On the other hand, it was less commonly undertaken before exercise stress tests (63.2%) or transoesophageal echocardiography (61.4%), although these percentages are much higher than those recorded during previous enquiries in 2000 and 2001. The information given was, in the large majority of cases, that proposed by the French Society of Cardiology and it was usually the practitioner who ordered the investigation who informed the patient (45.4%). In 2002, the role of the nurse was much greater as the nurse informed the patient in 27.2% of cases. The patient was generally given the information the day before the procedure was carried out (74.1%) with complementary information (90.7%), and less than 1% of patients declined the investigation under these conditions. In order to provide proof of patient information, the practitioner usually required the patient's signature (58.3% of cases); less commonly, the referring physician was informed by letter (13.9% of cases) or a note was made in the patient's file (33.9% of cases). The new requirements for patient information have changed medical practice in nearly 53.5% of cases. Finally, although patient information is considered to be part of the normal patient-doctor relationship in most cases (42.7%), doctors thought that patients interpreted this procedure as a cover for the medical team in 18.2% of cases. The information bases most commonly used to determine the methods of informing patients and the nature of the information to be provided were medical reviews (38.9%) or the internet (30.5%). The authors conclude that patient information is carried out before complementary cardiological investigations. The new laws of the Code of Public Health are not well known. Finally, the proof of patient information is not easily provided and the majority of cardiologists request written patient consent, which is not a legal requirement.
|
| pubmed:language |
fre
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Dec
|
| pubmed:issn |
0003-9683
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
96
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
1191-7
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-2-13
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
2003
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
[Has the obligation to inform patients changed our mode of practice?].
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Service de cardiologie, hôpital Avicenne, Paris.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
English Abstract
|