Observance of Patients’ Rights by Physicians and Operating Room Technicians

Mahsa Hazaryan, Masoome Salehi Kamboo, F. Mirzaeipour, Raziyeh Maasoumi
{"title":"Observance of Patients’ Rights by Physicians and Operating Room Technicians","authors":"Mahsa Hazaryan, Masoome Salehi Kamboo, F. Mirzaeipour, Raziyeh Maasoumi","doi":"10.5812/msnj.123316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patients’ rights refer to specific legal privileges related to physical, psychological, spiritual, and social needs that have been reflected in the form of medical standards, rules, and regulations, and the health system and medical staff are responsible for their observance. Objectives: The present study aimed to assess the observance of patients’ rights by physicians (surgeons and anesthesiologists) and technicians (anesthetists and operating room technicians). Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 142 operating room technicians and physicians working in hospitals affiliated with Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences in 2018. The participants were selected using stratified random sampling. The patient rights observation checklist was completed by indirect observation of the participants’ performance, and the data were analyzed with SPSS version 20 using the chi-square test and independent samples t-test. Results: The mean scores for the extent to which patients’ rights were observed by all technicians and all physicians were 69.7 ± 10.5 and 57.17 ± 11.7, respectively. The corresponding values were 65.15 ± 9.36 and 54.27 ± 11.24 for the anesthesiologists and surgeons and 84.16 ± 7.31 and 66.63 ± 8.23 for the anesthetists and operating room technicians, respectively. The patients’ rights observance scores were significantly higher for the anesthetists than for the operating room technicians (P = 0.001) and higher for the anesthesiologists than for the surgeons (P = 0.005). Conclusions: This study indicated that although anesthesiologists and anesthetists observed patients’ rights more than operating room technicians and surgeons, the observance of patients’ rights in the operating room was generally moderate. Thus, it is essential to hold refresher courses in medical ethics and patient rights for medical staff.","PeriodicalId":18480,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Surgical Nursing Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical-Surgical Nursing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/msnj.123316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Patients’ rights refer to specific legal privileges related to physical, psychological, spiritual, and social needs that have been reflected in the form of medical standards, rules, and regulations, and the health system and medical staff are responsible for their observance. Objectives: The present study aimed to assess the observance of patients’ rights by physicians (surgeons and anesthesiologists) and technicians (anesthetists and operating room technicians). Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 142 operating room technicians and physicians working in hospitals affiliated with Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences in 2018. The participants were selected using stratified random sampling. The patient rights observation checklist was completed by indirect observation of the participants’ performance, and the data were analyzed with SPSS version 20 using the chi-square test and independent samples t-test. Results: The mean scores for the extent to which patients’ rights were observed by all technicians and all physicians were 69.7 ± 10.5 and 57.17 ± 11.7, respectively. The corresponding values were 65.15 ± 9.36 and 54.27 ± 11.24 for the anesthesiologists and surgeons and 84.16 ± 7.31 and 66.63 ± 8.23 for the anesthetists and operating room technicians, respectively. The patients’ rights observance scores were significantly higher for the anesthetists than for the operating room technicians (P = 0.001) and higher for the anesthesiologists than for the surgeons (P = 0.005). Conclusions: This study indicated that although anesthesiologists and anesthetists observed patients’ rights more than operating room technicians and surgeons, the observance of patients’ rights in the operating room was generally moderate. Thus, it is essential to hold refresher courses in medical ethics and patient rights for medical staff.
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
医生和手术室技术人员对病人权利的遵守
背景:患者权利是指与身体、心理、精神和社会需求相关的特定法律特权,这些权利以医疗标准、规章和条例的形式体现出来,卫生系统和医务人员有责任遵守这些权利。目的:本研究旨在评估医生(外科医生和麻醉师)和技术人员(麻醉师和手术室技术人员)对患者权利的遵守情况。方法:对2018年在阿瓦士医科大学附属医院工作的142名手术室技术人员和医生进行描述性分析横断面研究。研究对象采用分层随机抽样方法。患者权利观察表采用间接观察方法填写,数据采用SPSS 20版分析,采用卡方检验和独立样本t检验。结果:全体技师和全体医师对患者权利的观察程度平均得分分别为69.7±10.5分和57.17±11.7分。麻醉医师和外科医师分别为65.15±9.36和54.27±11.24,麻醉医师和手术室技师分别为84.16±7.31和66.63±8.23。麻醉医师的患者权利遵守得分显著高于手术室技师(P = 0.001),麻醉医师的患者权利遵守得分显著高于外科医生(P = 0.005)。结论:本研究表明,虽然麻醉医师和麻醉师对患者权利的尊重程度高于手术室技师和外科医生,但手术室对患者权利的尊重程度普遍较低。因此,必须对医务人员进行医德和病人权利方面的进修。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Effectiveness of ACT and DBT-Based Interventions with and without Exercise on Pain Outcomes and Desire for Treatment in Substance-Dependent Patients with Chronic Pain Effect of Self-efficacy-Based Training on Treatment Adherence of Patients with Heart Failure The Effect of an Exercise Program on the Quality of Life in Burn Patients Activities of Daily Living in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Hybrid Concept Analysis Effect of Mobile Health Self-Care Training on Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis Patients
×
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