La bi-direzionalità funzionale tra processo di consenso informato e mediazione sanitaria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7175/pmeal.v8i2.920Parole chiave:
Informed consent, Physician-patient communication, Patient’s autonomy, Mediation in healthcare, Alternative dispute resolutionAbstract
[The bi-directionality among informed consent process and mediation applied to healthcare conflicts]
Informed consent in the hospital as in any other healthcare setting is - before anything else - a process of communication and relationship which must involve the patient in a decision directly affecting his/her health. In this article, we focus our attention on the bi-directionality existing among an informed consent process and the instrument of alternative dispute resolution constituted by mediation applied to healthcare conflicts. The link between the two legal institutions is bidirectional because informed consent is a fundamental premise of a good mediation and mediation - in turn - can be an important stimulus to continuously improve the process of informed consent. This bi-directionality for both legal institutions is fueled by the element of "trust". While trust in informed consent is the result of a continuous dialogue and listening between the doctor, the staff and the patient, in mediation it represents the crucial element to be redialed. Therefore, mediation in health care is an effective tool for managing conflicts to the extent that goes to latch on to a real and previous communicative relationship that actually materialized between the parties around the relationship of care. The emotional reality of the patient and his family - as well as that one regarding health professionals themselves - can emerge in an effective way during mediation, through the co-presence of the parties in a facilitated dialogue. This same reality can motivate health professionals to acquire a thorough and in-depth training on the aspects of values, techniques and tools necessary for the realization of a genuine process-based informed consent within an effective doctor-patient communication. All this can and must be done - in an organization sensitive to these issues - according to a virtuous cycle that feeds on itself and creates a renewed wellness for physicians as well as for patients in their inseparable relationship of care.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Roberti A, Belotti C, Caterino L. Comunicazione medico-paziente. Urgnano: Alessio Roberti Editore, 2006
Watzlawick P, Beavin Bavelas J, Jackson DD. Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1967
Radley A, Cheek J, Ritter C. The making of health: a reflection on the first 10 years in the life of a journal. Health (London) 2006; 10: 389-400; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363459306067309
Radley A. Abhorrence, compassion and the social response to suffering. Health (London) 1999; 3: 167-87; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136345939900300203
Radley A. Making sense of illness: the social psychology of health and disease. London: Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 232
Giannico B (ed). La mediazione civile tra “fare e agire”. Interventi di Moroni E, D’Alessandro M, Zampedri F, De Stefano G, Quattrocolo A, Sticco V, Giannico B. Caserta: Giuseppe Vozza Editore, 2011
Shapiro RS, Simpson DE, Lawrence SL, et al. A survey of sued and nonsued physicians and suing patients. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 2190-6; http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1989.00390100028008
Suva D, Haller G, Hoffmeyer P. Patient information and informed consent in orthopaedic surgery: is it possible? Rev Med Suisse 2011; 7: 2475-7
Rathor MY, Rani MF, Shah AM, et al. Informed consent: a socio-legal study. Med J Malaysia 2011; 66: 423-8
FRO Faculty of Radiation Oncology. Guidelines for informed consent, version 2. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. July 2010. Disponibile online su: http://www.ranzcr.edu.au (ultimo accesso: maggio 2014)
Recchia V, Dodaro A, Braga L. Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging. Insights Imaging 2013; 4: 647-53; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0272-6
Dodaro A, Recchia V. Inappropriateness in ionizing imaging. The central node of the informed consent: from “event” model to “process” model. Recenti Prog Med 2011; 102: 421-31
Dodaro A. Clinical appropriateness and informed consent in the Italian hospitals. Juridical problems and safeguard of patient’s and physician’s rights. Recenti Prog Med 2011; 102: 296-301
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Meisel A. Two models of implementing informed consent. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1385-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1988.00380060149027
Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, et al. The information imperative: is it time for an informed consent process explaining the risks of medical radiation? Radiology 2012; 262: 15-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110616
Terranova G, Ferro M, Carpeggiani C, et al. Low quality and lack of clarity of current informed consent forms in cardiology: how to improve them. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 5: 649-55; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.03.007
Picano E. Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 2004; 329: 849-51; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7470.849
Picano E. Sustainability of medical imaging. BMJ 2004; 328: 578-580; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7439.578
Christie DR. Do written consent forms provide medicolegal protection from litigation in radiotherapy? Australas Radiol 2004; 48: 353-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-8461.2004.01318.x
Marks P. The evolution of the doctrine of consent. Clin Med 2003; 3: 45-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.3-1-45
Edwards A, Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care 2001; 10 (Suppl 1): i9-i13; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100009
Hoffman FO, Kocher DC, Apostoaei AI. Beyond dose assessment: using risk with full disclosure of uncertainty in public and scientific communication. Health Phys 2011; 101: 591-600; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e318225c2e1
Klein WM, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:147-67; http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.57.3.147
Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007; 31 (Suppl 1):S47-56; http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.7
Roach P, Marrero D. A critical dialogue: communicating with type 2 diabetes patients about cardiovascular risk. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2005; 1:301-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/vhrm.2005.1.4.301
Sedgwick P, Hall A. Teaching medical students and doctors how to communicate risk. BMJ 2003; 327: 694-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.694
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 149-63; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191
Graham PH. Re: faculty of radiation oncology endorsed guidelines for informed consent: risk description. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54: 512; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02205.x
Derèse MN. Mediation in the Belgian health care sector: analysis of a particular issue--the material scope of application of mediation. Med Law 2011; 30: 225-37
Epstein NE. It is easier to confuse a jury than convince a judge: the crisis in medical malpractice. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 2425-30; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200211150-00002
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Bellotti. Fed Report 1989; 868: 459-73
Sohn DH. Negligence, genuine error, and litigation. Int J Gen Med 2013;6: 49-56; http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S24256
Sohn DH, Bal BS. Medical malpractice reform: the role of alternative dispute resolution. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 1370-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2206-2
Klein CA, Klein AB. Alternative dispute resolution part 2: mediation. Nurse Pract 2008; 33: 13-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000309093.12012.72
Dekking SA, van der Graaf R, van Delden JJ. Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship. BMC Med 2014; 12: 52; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-52
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Gli autori che pubblicano su questa rivista accettano i seguenti termini:
- Gli autori mantengono il copyright e garantiscono alla rivista il diritto di prima pubblicazione del lavoro, sottoposto a licenza Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License, che consente ad altri di condividere il lavoro a patto di riconoscere la paternità dell’opera e la prima pubblicazione in questa rivista.
- Gli autori possono stipulare accordi contrattuali separati e aggiuntivi per la distribuzione non-esclusiva del lavoro nella versione pubblicata dalla rivista (es. archiviarlo in repository istituzionali o pubblicarlo in un libro), a patto che sia riconosciuta la prima pubblicazione in questa rivista. L’accordo di pubblicazione può essere scaricato cliccando qui e deve essere firmato dagli autori e inviato all’Editore al momento dell’accettazione dell’articolo da parte della rivista.
- Gli autori sono autorizzati e incoraggiati a diffondere il lavoro online (es. in repository istituzionali o sul proprio sito), prima e durante il processo di sottomissione, poiché ciò può portare effetti positivi per la visibilità e la diffusione del lavoro, come una maggiore citazione dell’articolo pubblicato (vedi The Effect of Open Access).
- Gli autori sono autorizzati a pubblicare il lavoro online dopo la pubblicazione, tramite link alla versione pubblicata sulla rivista in formato html
