选择性精神健康护理中治疗名额的分配--候诊名单是伦理上最合适的选择吗?

Thomas Haustein,Ralf J Jox
{"title":"选择性精神健康护理中治疗名额的分配--候诊名单是伦理上最合适的选择吗?","authors":"Thomas Haustein,Ralf J Jox","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2024.2416128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.","PeriodicalId":501008,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care-Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Haustein,Ralf J Jox\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15265161.2024.2416128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2416128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2416128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

候诊名单是管理择期医疗需求过剩的一种标准方法。虽然候诊时间是一个重要的政策问题,但先来后到(FCFS)原则在伦理上的有效性却很少受到质疑。我们以一家精神科日间医院为例,在这家医院里,所有符合条件的病人都有大致相同的要求,我们批评了在分配精神科择期医疗时条件反射地使用 "先到先得 "原则的做法,考虑了在什么情况下这可能不是最佳策略,并讨论了替代方案。我们的结论是,在我们的例子中,优先考虑更近期的转介(后到先得 [LCFS])在临床和伦理上都更合理。在 "后进先出 "原则下,如果有几个转诊病人(几乎)同时到达,我们建议采用更高水平的审查,以发现优先处理其中一个病人的可能理由。我们相信,我们的观察结果可以应用到与我们的案例具有相同特点的其他医疗环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care-Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?
Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care-Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option? Errors, Omissions, and Pediatric Gender Medicine. The Ethical Standard for End-of-Life Decisions for Unrepresented Patients. How Does the Categorical System Account for Socioeconomic Background and Embodied Advantage? A Policy Development Dialogue. Patients with Limited English Proficiency: Legal Mandates for Language Assistance Services.
×
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