ObjectiveTo understand the cognition and mediation tendencies of health care workers in terms of third-party mediation for medical disputes, analyze the factors influencing the trust of both doctors and patients on third-party mediation, and propose suggestions on building third-party mediation mechanisms for medical disputes. MethodsBetween August and December 2012, we made the cognition questionnaire on third-party mediation for medical disputes based on the past medical literature, and the knowledge of doctor-patient relationship as well as third-party mediation agency's organizational structure (including locations and management authorities), staffing, mediation basis, validity sources and fund ensuring. We performed the random cluster sampling survey on all health care workers in five hospitals of different levels. The original data were put into the computer for statistical analysis by SPSS 18.0. ResultsThe knowledge of health care workers on third-party mediation was high. They believed that the best place for solving medical disputes should be the court or judicial administrative department, and the management authorities should be health administrative departments. In case of mediation failure, the majority of health care staff chose to continue to solve the dispute through legal channels. For the effectiveness of mediation conclusion, most health care workers tended to believe in the form of arbitration. They thought that mediators should have professional background of medicine and law; the majority of those surveyed doctors tended to accept forensic conclusions as a basis for mediation. For determining the compensation, doctors were in favor of Applicable Regulations for Medical Malpractice. Over 40% of medical staff believed that third-party mediation should be financed by government financial allocation, and more than half of the medical staff believed that it should be paid by the insurance company. ConclusionThird-party mediation should be set in and managed by the court or judicial and administrative departments. Mediator group should be formed by professionals of law and medical sciences. In the mediation process, it is recommended that the focus of controversy should be identified by forensic identification in order to form a clear division of responsibilities and high mediation efficiency. We recommend that the government introduce in financial allocations at all levels on the basis of medical liability insurance system, and force medical institutions to purchase medical liability insurance through the regulations of law, in order to provide funding support for the operation of third-party mediation organizations. Meanwhile, medical liability insurance companies should be operated under strict supervision to avoid their interference on the mediation work.
ObjectiveTo understand patients’ cognition of third-party mediation model for medical disputes, analyze the factors influencing the trust of patients on third-party mediation, and propose recommendations for building third-party mediation mechanisms. MethodsFrom November 2013 to April 2014, we referred past literature to design a relevant questionnaire on the cognition of third-party mediation for medical disputes. Patients who had reached the end of the treatment were surveyed by random cluster sampling. The raw data were put into the computer for statistical analysis by SPSS 18.0. ResultsAfter giving out 500 questionnaires, we acquired 486 effective questionnaires. The result showed that 61.52% of the patients knew of third-party mediation; 55.35% of the patients considered that thirdparty mediation should be set in and supervised by the court or judicial administrative department; if the mediation failed, 57.41% of the patients chose to resolve the dispute through legal channels, and 67.90% of the patients tended to confirm the force of mediation conclusion by arbitration; 70.58% of the patients considered that mediators should have professional background of medicine and law; 73.05% of the patients tended to take conclusions of forensic identification as the basis for mediation; 64.81% of the patients were biased to take Tort Liability Act as the basis for determining the compensation; 53.70% of the patients believed that financial allocations could solve the fund problems of third-party mediation, while 38.48% of the patients thought the funds should be provided by insurance companies; 91.15% of the patients thought the medical institutions should purchase medical liability insurance, and 54.32% of the patients thought insurance companies should not intervene the process of meditation. Conclusions Government should provide financial allocations to ensure the funds of third-party mediation. Besides, medical insurance should be brought in as a supplement. Medical institutions should purchase medical liability insurance to solve problems caused by medical disputes. Third-party mediation should be set in and supervised by the court or the judicial administrative department. Mediators should have professional background of medicine and law. Conclusions of forensic identification should be the basis for third-party mediation.
【摘要】 目的 探讨新生儿死亡医疗纠纷中临床及法医病理学特点,启示儿科医护人员在防范此类医疗纠纷时应注意的相关问题。方法 对四川大学华西基础医学与法医学院法医病理教研室1998年1月—2007年12月的60例新生儿死亡尸检案例进行回顾性统计分析。结果 60例中除3例非正常死亡外,57例为自然性疾病死亡。其中出生后24 h死亡32例(56.1%),死亡男婴40例(70.2%)。死亡原因主要为胎粪吸入综合征、肺透明膜病、肺出血等窒息性疾病(49.1%)。其中医疗过失性纠纷21例(36.8%),医疗过失的原因主要为观察不仔细、处理不及时、误诊漏诊、产前检查或助产处理不当、告知不足等。涉及纠纷的医院以市级医院居多(58.7%)。结论 医护人员应严格遵守诊疗常规和操作规范,对新生儿加强监护,及时抢救,同时应积极与家属沟通,以减少医疗纠纷的发生。
目的 探究妇科投诉纠纷发生的状况及原因，以改进工作方式减少投诉现象。 方法 对2005年1月－2010年12月妇科门诊和病房发生的投诉及医患纠纷资料进行收集，并对其原因进行分类统计分析，提出相关应对措施。 结果 6年间门诊及病房共发生投诉41例，纠纷8例。其医务人员技术水平不到位、服务态度差、沟通缺乏，就医环境差、收费不合理、患者自身因素等是投诉纠纷发生的主要原因。 结论 妇科是纠纷易发科室，但只要采用有效的控制措施，就能减少甚至避免医患纠纷的发生，提高患者满意度。