Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Family Practice , General Practice , Nonverbal Communication/psychology , Physical Examination , Physician-Patient Relations/ethics , Touch Perception , Touch , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Clinical Competence/standards , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Family Practice/ethics , Family Practice/methods , General Practice/ethics , General Practice/methods , Humans , Physical Distancing , Physical Examination/ethics , Physical Examination/methods , Physical Examination/psychology , Professionalism/ethics , Professionalism/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation/psychologyABSTRACT
In the United Kingdom, the question of how much information is required to be given to patients about the benefits and risks of proposed treatment remains extant. Issues about whether healthcare resources can accommodate extended shared decision-making processes are yet to be resolved. COVID-19 has now stepped into this arena of uncertainty, adding more complexity. U.K. public health responses to the pandemic raise important questions about professional standards regarding how the obtaining and recording of consent might change or be maintained in such emergency conditions, particularly in settings where equipment, medicines, and appropriately trained or specialized staff are in short supply. Such conditions have important implications for the professional capacity and knowledge available to discuss the risks and benefits of and alternatives to proposed treatment with patients. The government's drive to expedite the recruitment to wards of medical students nearing the end of their studies, as well as inviting retired practitioners back into practice, raises questions about the ability of such healthcare providers to engage fully in shared decision-making.This article explores whether the legal duty on healthcare practitioners to disclose the material risks of a proposed medical treatment to a patient should be upheld during pandemic conditions or whether the pre-eminence of patient autonomy should be partly sacrificed in such exceptional circumstances. We argue that measures to protect public health and to respect autonomous decision-making are not mutually exclusive and that there are good reasons to maintain professional standards in obtaining consent to treatment even during acute pressures on public health systems.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Informed Consent , Pandemics , Professionalism/standards , Social Responsibility , COVID-19/therapy , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United KingdomABSTRACT
Facing an investigation into performance concerns can be one of the most traumatic events in a doctor's career, and badly handled investigations can lead to severe distress. Yet there is no systematic way for National Health Service (NHS) Trusts to record the frequency of investigations, and extremely little data on the long-term outcomes of such action for the doctors. The document-Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS (a framework for the initial investigation of concerns about doctors and dentists in the NHS)-should protect doctors from facing unfair or mismanaged performance management procedures, which include conduct, capability and health. Equally, it provides NHS Trusts with a framework that must be adhered to when managing performance concerns regarding doctors. Yet, very few doctors have even heard of it or know about the provisions it contains for their protection, and the implementation of the framework appears to be very variable across NHS Trusts. By empowering all doctors with the knowledge of what performance management procedures exist and how best practice should be implemented, we aim to ensure that they are informed participants in any investigation should it occur.