Research on the Identification Model of Medical Damage.
10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2022.220105
- Author:
Tian TIAN
1
;
Xu-Dong ZHANG
2
;
Li-Bing YUN
1
;
Ming LI
3
;
He-Wen DONG
4
;
Ning-Guo LIU
4
;
Min LIU
1
Author Information
1. West China School of Basic Medical Sciences and Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
2. School of Forensic Medicine, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030000, China.
3. Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Public Security Bureau, Huangnan 811399, Qinghai Province, China.
4. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Key Laboratory of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, Shanghai Forensic Service Platform, Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai 200063, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Chongqing;
Sichuan;
appraisal model;
forensic medicine;
medical damage;
medical dispute;
questionnaire investigation approach
- MeSH:
China;
Dissent and Disputes;
Forensic Medicine;
Humans;
Physician-Patient Relations;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:
Journal of Forensic Medicine
2022;38(2):158-165
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:To understand the perceptions of doctors, patients and forensic examiners on the current situation of medical disputes and medical damage identification in China, and to explore the medical damage identification model that is more conducive for the resolution of medical disputes.
METHODS:A questionnaire was designed, and in-service clinicians, forensic examiners and inpatients in Sichuan Province and Chongqing City were randomly selected from April to November 2019. SPSS 22.0 software was used to analyze the data of various survey results.
RESULTS:Compared with patients (24.92%), doctors (61.72%) believed that the current doctor-patient relationship was more tense than before; both doctors and patients were more inclined to choose voluntary consultation and people's mediation to resolve medical disputes; forensic examiners have the highest level of cognition of medical and health-related laws and regulations, followed by doctors and patients; 66.72% of doctors and 78.41% of patients believed that medical damage identification was necessary, and they were more inclined to entrust forensic identification institutions; different groups all believed that forensic examiners and doctors should participate in the identification together, 80.94% of doctors believed that the appraisal institutions should be responsible for the forensic opinion, not the appraiser.
CONCLUSIONS:It is suggested that the Medical Association identification and forensic identification should learn from each other and formulate basic unified rules for the identification of medical damage. It is suggested to standardize the behavior of medical damage forensic identification institutions and appraisers, to improve their own appraisal level, actively invite clinical medical experts for consultation in identification, and promote the standardized, scientization of forensic identification.
