Some say it’s because patients are becoming better informed:
Doctor-patient conflicts are increasingly common in an information age in which patients know more about their care and about variations in how doctors practice medicine. Hospitals have long maintained ethics committees and rules for resolving such disputes, but are reporting an increasing demand in a variety of medical specialties — from surgery to intensive care to obstetrics.
Similar Posts:
- How should doctors handle the difficult patient?
- Robotic surgery is driven by patient demand
- Do neuroenhancement pills really improve attention, memory, or cognition?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
I have recently been reading some of your blog posts and how found interest in your post and your blogging experience.
I have sent along a more formal email addressing my interest and asking for your participation in non-formal interview that I would like to conduct as part of my MBA dissertation research.
I hope that we can be in contact soon.
Regards
Rhona
My one interaction with a clinic’s Patient Advocate was not helpful. In this clinic’s hierarchy, the Patient Advocate reports to the clinic risk management attorney. Both, obviously, are clinic employees, and I did not feel they were even remotely impartial. I submitted my concern briefly in writing, expecting follow-up investigation. They simply rendered a verdict based on that initial communication — not once actually speaking with me — and responded to all further queries with “our decision is final”.
I imagine whether such negotiations actually work depends on how well the administration supports such efforts. As long as the ethics committees and patient advocates are paid by the hospital/clinic, its power is limited and there is some incentive protect the employer’s interests.
Comments on this entry are closed.