Drugs and the doctor-patient relationship

1973 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 604-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. Sherman
2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A735-A735
Author(s):  
C STREETS ◽  
J PETERS ◽  
D BRUCE ◽  
P TSAI ◽  
N BALAJI ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
Jose Luis Turabian

Psychology and sociology share a common object of study, human behaviour, but from different perspectives. Sociologists have focused on macro variables, such as social structure, education, gender, age, race, etc., while psychology has focused on micro variables such as individual personality and behaviours, beliefs, empathy, listening, etc. Despite the importance of interpersonal relationship skills, they depend on the community or social context in which communication takes place, and by themselves may have little relevance in the consultation. The purely psychological analysis of the doctor-patient relationship often leads to an idyllic vision, with the patient-centred consultation as the greatest exponent, which rarely occurs in real life. The purely sociological or community / social analysis of the doctor-patient relationship leads to a negative view of the consultation, which is always shown as problematic. But, the psychological system in the doctor-patient relationship cannot be neglected, and its study is of importance, at least as an intermediate mechanism that is created through socio-community relations. Although the same social causes are behind the doctor-patient relationship, when acting on psychological factors in the consultation, they act as an optical prism scattering socio-community relations that affect the doctor and the patient, giving rise to a beam of different colors of doctor-patient relationship. In doctor-patient relationship there is a modality of psychotherapy, where attitudes, thoughts and behaviour of the patient, can be change, as well as it can be extended on the way of understanding and therefore changing, his social context. Because of the distance between socio-community relations and the form of doctor-patient relations is growing in complex societies, under these conditions, the sociological factor gives the important place to the psychological factor. Given these difficulties of the doctor-patient relationship one may ask how general medical practice can persist with the usual model of doctor-patient relationship. Pain and the desire to relieve them are the basic reasons for the patient and the doctor, and they do not disappear due to the contradictions of the doctor-patient relationship. In this way, the confrontation between sociological and psychological vision is replaced by an alliance of both currents, and each of them takes on meaning only in the general vision.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 567-570
Author(s):  
Radost Assenova ◽  
Levena Kireva ◽  
Gergana Foreva

Introduction: The European definition of WONCA of general practice introduces the determinant elements of person-centered care regarding four important, interrelated characteristics: continuity of care, patient "empowerment", patient-centred approach, and doctor-patient relationship. The application of person-centred care in general practice refers to the GP's ability to master the patient-centered approach when working with patients and their problems in the respective context; use the general practice consultation to develop an effective doctor–patient relationship, with respect to patient’s autonomy; communicate, set priorities and establish a partnership when solving health problems; provide long-lasting care tailored to the needs of the patient and coordinate overall patient care. This means that GPs are expected to develop their knowledge and skills to use this key competence. Aim: The aim of this study is to make a preliminary assessment of the knowledge and attitudes of general practitioners regarding person-centered care. Material and methods: The opinion of 54 GPs was investigated through an original questionnaire, including closed questions, with more than one answer. The study involved each GP who has agreed to take part in organised training in person-centered care. The results were processed through the SPSS 17.0 version using descriptive statistics. Results: The distribution of respondents according to their sex is predominantly female - 34 (62.9%). It was found that GPs investigated by us highly appreciate the patient's ability to take responsibility, noting that it is important for them to communicate and establish a partnership with the patient - 37 (68.5%). One third of the respondents 34 (62.9%) stated the need to use the GP consultation to establish an effective doctor-patient relationship. The adoption of the patient-centered approach at work is important to 24 (44.4%) GPs. Provision of long-term care has been considered by 19 (35,2%). From the possible benefits of implementing person-centered care, GPs have indicated achieving more effective health outcomes in the first place - 46 (85.2%). Conclusion: Family doctors are aware of the elements of person-centered care, but in order to validate and fully implement this competence model, targeted GP training is required.


Author(s):  
Mani Shutzberg

AbstractThe commonly occurring metaphors and models of the doctor–patient relationship can be divided into three clusters, depending on what distribution of power they represent: in the paternalist cluster, power resides with the physician; in the consumer model, power resides with the patient; in the partnership model, power is distributed equally between doctor and patient. Often, this tripartite division is accepted as an exhaustive typology of doctor–patient relationships. The main objective of this paper is to challenge this idea by introducing a fourth possibility and distribution of power, namely, the distribution in which power resides with neither doctor nor patient. This equality in powerlessness—the hallmark of “the age of bureaucratic parsimony”—is the point of departure for a qualitatively new doctor–patient relationship, which is best described in terms of solidarity between comrades. This paper specifies the characteristics of this specific type of solidarity and illustrates it with a case study of how Swedish doctors and patients interrelate in the sickness certification practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002581722110248
Author(s):  
Andrea Cioffi ◽  
Raffaella Rinaldi

An occupational physician is employed to be responsible for the overall assessment of workers’ health risks and all work-related pathological situations which creates an unusual doctor–patient relationship. The duties of the occupational physician are also very limited as is their professional responsibility. However, the boundaries of the occupational physician’s duties and responsibilities are not always clear. The purpose of this article is to answer the following question: Does the occupational doctor have a duty to carry out general clinical evaluations (not work-related) of the patient?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document