On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1111/jep.14293
Richard C Armitage
{"title":"On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice.","authors":"Richard C Armitage","doi":"10.1111/jep.14293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.</p><p><strong>Findings and discussion: </strong>The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party-either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients' clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively 'catching up' in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients' clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":"e14293"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11664903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: GPs, at least in the United Kingdom, often run behind schedule in their clinics. This lateness is an inherently ethical problem due to the negative consequences it generates.

Methods: The paper outlines these negative consequences, attempts to classify the major reasons for such lateness, explores the ethical status of each of these reasons, and offers suggestions for how the negative consequences might be managed.

Findings and discussion: The major reasons for lateness can be classified as GP-related, patient-related, and third party-related. The major negative consequences of lateness in general practice might be classified as the potential disturbance to quality and safe care, the dissatisfaction of and inconvenience to subsequent patients, and the disruption of timely care. These negative consequences must be burdened by some party-either the patient who is related to the reason for the lateness, or other patients who are not. While a strict equality approach to managing such lateness does not consider patients' clinical needs, GPs compensating by actively 'catching up' in their clinics threatens quality and safety of care. The paper argues for minimising the negative consequences of lateness for all parties, while simultaneously promoting equity with regard to patients' clinical needs. The ethical status of each major reason for lateness in general practice is explored, and suggestions are offered for how each might be managed to minimise the negative consequences and promote equity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
On Lateness: The Ethics of Running Behind Schedule in General Practice. Implementation of an Early Referral Programme for Patients With Hand Arthralgia. Improving Nursing Students' Learning Outcomes in Neonatal Resuscitation: A Quasi-Experimental Study Comparing AI-Assisted Care Plan Learning With Traditional Instruction. Integrated Care Implemented in the Children's Hospital From the Interwar Period as the Source of Good Practices for the Contemporary Concept of Coordinated Care Based on the WHO Model. Lack of Prescription Drug Benefit Knowledge and Problems Paying Medical Bills Among Medicare Beneficiaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1