MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2128626339 · doi:10.36834/cmej.36652

Doctor-patient relationships, laws, clinical guidelines, best practices, evidence-based medicine, medical errors and patient safety

2013· article· en· W2128626339 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Claudio Violato

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawHippocratic OathLiabilityMantraMedicinePoliticsRemunerationPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Patient safety has now become a mantra of modern medical practice. Rules, laws, guidelines, evidence and best practices are frequently invoked to improve patient safety. These are not new; they have governed the practice of medicine since antiquity. A set of laws, known as the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1740 B.C.E.) have come down to us from the Babylonians after its namesake, the founder of the Babylonian empire.1 These 282 statues or common laws governed nearly all aspects of social, political, economic and professional life including those pertaining to physicians, surgeons, veterinarians, midwifes and wet nurses. Carefully conscribed details were devoted to specifying the relationship between patients and practitioners, including fees and penalties. Problems of “internal medicine” were dealt with physicians of the priestly class who saw to internal disorders caused by supernatural factors. The surgeon who dealt with physical problems, however, was accountable for both remuneration and liability to earthly courts. If a doctor performed surgery, generally with a bronze knife, and saved the life or eyesight of an upper class citizen, he was to be paid 10 shekels of silver. A similar outcome for a commoner was worth 5 shekels and only 2 shekels for a slave. If the outcome for the upper class citizen was bad (blindness or death), the doctor’s hand was amputated. If a slave died because of the surgery, the doctor had to provide a replacement but had to pay only half the value in silver if the slave was blinded. The Code provided further detail for many procedures including those of veterinarians (“doctor of an ox or ass”). Probably the most famous physician of all time and the founder of clinical medicine is Hippocrates (circa 460-360 B.C.E.) of Greek antiquity, the putative author of the Corpus Hippocraticum.2 Upon graduation from medical school, many modern physicians continue to take the Hippocratic Oath, the model of the ideal physician. Many historians question whether Hippocrates actually wrote this Oath or even the essays attributed to him. Some even question whether Hippocrates was a real person or was a composite created later by Greek and Roman scholars. Even in antiquity there were rules, policies, and regulations on how to behave as a physician. Next to Hippocrates, Galen is probably the next most famous physician in history. His works and texts continued to be studied by medical students and scholars for hundreds of years after his death. When Galen ventured to Rome in 161 A.D. he was met with hostility by the medical establishment. For five years he was able to remain to practice medicine, lecture and conduct public discussions under the protection of the powerful Emperor Marcus Aurelius who named him the “first of physicians and philosophers”.2 Eventually, Galen left to return to Greece complaining that he had been driven out of Rome by the medical establishment who saw him as an interloper. Galen did subsequently return to Rome honoring a request from Marcus Aurelius. He remained for the rest of his life.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,693
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,679
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,693
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2280,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,302
Tête enseignante GPT0,535
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Medical Education JournalMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207