Good surgical practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-50

This chapter discusses the duties of a doctor, which are outlined in the General Medical Council (GMC)’s Good medical practice. These have been adapted by the Royal College of Surgeons of England for surgical practice. The four domains of good medical practice include: knowledge, skills, and performance; safety and quality; communication, partnership, and teamwork; and maintaining trust. Clinical governance is a quality assurance process through which a health service is accountable for maintaining and improving the quality of care. In practice, it involves setting standards, performance monitoring, and reporting medical errors and is commonly said to be held up by ‘seven pillars’: clinical effectiveness; audit; risk management; education and training; patient and public involvement; using information and information technology; and staffing and staff management. The chapter then looks at the legal aspects concerning informed consent for a surgical procedure and end-of-life issues. It also outlines the principles of good prescribing in surgery.

Author(s):  
Abdullah Jibawi ◽  
Mohamed Baguneid ◽  
Arnab Bhowmick

The importance of the surgeon’s professional responsibilities goes beyond immediate good clinical practice into the wider purpose and values that underpin the profession. Acceptable levels of good surgical practice, as detailed in the GMC Good Medical Practice, requires a good understanding and a proper application of relationship and responsibilities with patients and colleagues, as well as other issues, safety and quality, clinical governance framework, providing references, and advising on sensitive issues, such as end of life management. Maintaining boundaries with patients should also be respected all the time.


Author(s):  
Mary Ann Cohen ◽  
Sharon M. Batista

From confidentiality, contact notification, and disclosure to decisional capacity, advance directives, and end-of-life care, AIDS presents special bioethical challenges to caregivers. Stigma, fear of rejection, and discrimination play significant roles in the bioethical aspects of the care of persons with HIV and AIDS. As a consequence, caregivers are often faced with bioethical dilemmas and conflicts. While many persons with HIV and AIDS are comfortable with disclosure to partners and family members, some persons with HIV refuse to disclose their serostatus even to sexual partners. Many persons with HIV and AIDS are able, especially with support, to come to safer and healthier decisions about disclosure and about their health and medical care. In this chapter, we will explore these dilemmas and provide suggestions on how to deal with them. Strategies for dealing with ethical dilemmas, determining decisional capacity, addressing end-of-life issues, and maintaining confidentiality in the care of persons with HIV and AIDS are also presented. To begin a discussion of ethics as applied to clinical care, it is important to define the terms used in this context. The definitions of the terms used in this chapter are based not only on formal definitions as published in bioethics texts and articles but also their use in common medical practice. Table 13.1 provides definitions of some of the bioethics terms that are relevant to this discussion. Within the doctor–patient relationship, physicians are expected to understand and relate to their patients as their own primary decision-makers. Patients are presumed to be autonomous and to have decisional capacity. However, at times, decisional capacity can be called into question, such as when a medical condition impairs the patient’s capacity to understand the illness or results in impaired judgment. Since autonomy is such a protected right, multiple criteria must be fulfilled in order to substitute another person’s judgment for that of the patient in cases where the patient is unable to make an appropriate decision for him- or herself. This assessment is called an assessment for capacity and is specific for each decision—a separate assessment must be performed for each decision to be made if the patient’s decision-making ability is under question.


2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Fried-Oken ◽  
Lisa Bardach

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (13) ◽  
pp. 53-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.Y. TAN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document