MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2994392426 · doi:10.1093/pch/17.6.305

Chaperoning adolescents: A bygone era or modern medical necessity?

2012· article· en· W2994392426 sur OpenAlexaff
MD FRCPC Alène Toulany, MD FRCPC Debra K Katzman, M. Goldberg, Anne Matlow, BSN FRCPC Miriam Kaufman

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineData scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The word ‘chaperone’ has many different connotations. To an adolescent, it may imply an adult who supervises at a school dance or a date. To a scientist, it may imply a protein that assists in the folding and unfolding of other structures. To a doctor, it is often unclear. The definition, roles and responsibilities of medical chaperones are not well defined in Canada. As it currently stands, there is no uniformity as to how and when medical chaperones should be used for general and/or intimate examinations of adolescents. This lack of guidance has led to confusion, and wide variation and inconsistencies in physicians’ practices (1). Intimate examinations involving the genitalia and/or breasts are often embarrassing and uncomfortable for patients of all ages, but especially for adolescents who are going through rapid changes in body structure, as well as physiological, psychological and social functioning. What may be considered a routine examination to physicians and nurses may not be perceived the same way by patients. For adolescents who are preoccupied with their changing bodies, self-conscious about their appearance and longing for increased privacy, any examination in which we ask them to remove clothing can potentially cause distress. As physicians who provide care to adolescents, our role should be to relieve their distress and advocate for the delivery of developmentally sensitive and confidential care that respects their need for privacy. While the use of social chaperones may be resisted and resented by young people, the use of medical chaperones may not. Few studies have investigated adolescents’ preferences regarding the use of medical chaperones. They have suggested that younger adolescents are more likely to prefer to be accompanied during intimate examinations, whereas older adolescents, particularly males, are more likely to prefer to be alone (2). Adolescents’ choice of chaperone may also be more reflective of their age and sex, rather than physician or nurse characteristics (2,3). More importantly, individual differences among adolescents of the same age are pronounced (2). Decisions regarding chaperone use in adolescents may, therefore, require addressing the individual needs of adolescents, without parents present, to determine their preferences. While physicians and nurses should be trying to better understand why patients make the choices they do regarding chaperones, the options, if any, currently offered to patients depend on the practicalities of who is available and willing to chaperone, as well as physician or nurse preference. As one might expect, many factors such as sex, sexual orientation, medicolegal influences and comfort in providing care to adolescents are associated with a physician’s decision to use a chaperone (1). However, should physician discretion, rather than policy, dictate practice in the use of medical chaperones? Adolescents need to be examined in an atmosphere characterized by sensitivity to their feelings and needs, respect for privacy and dignity, and patient choice. These issues are not discretionary. Things become more complicated, however, when health care professionals and the public become aware that a patient has been abused or a doctor falsely accused. At these times, the idea of a mandatory chaperone appears, to both the public and the medical profession, to be undeniably necessary. The unfortunate reality is that there will be health care professionals who abuse their position of trust. Without a chaperone present, there is no way of discerning who is telling the truth when accusations arise. Patients may even perceive an examination as abusive through their lack of understanding, inadequate explanation or mental health problems. The consequences of a false accusation are very serious because they can destroy a doctor or nurse’s reputation and, possibly, their livelihood. Traditionally, female nurses have acted as chaperones when male doctors have performed gynecological examinations on female patients. Clearly, times have changed. Increasing numbers of women are entering medicine and many more nurses are now male. In addition, as nurses’ roles expand, many more will be conducting intimate examinations alone. In today’s health care system, the best person to act as a medical chaperone is not always clear. Guidelines on the use of medical chaperones have been published in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) (4–6). The General Medical Council (UK) advises that a chaperone be offered to all patients undergoing an “intimate exam”, one involving the breasts, genitalia or rectum, regardless of the sex of the patient or doctor (4). The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on chaperone use states that in some cases, either the patient, the parent, the paediatrician or some combination of these persons, may wish to have a chaperone present; however, there are a variety of circumstances, including those in which the patient requests confidentiality, that would render the presence of a chaperone problematic (5). The American Medical Association advises doctors in the US to establish policies in which patients are free to make a request for a chaperone in each health care setting and that this policy should be communicated to patients either by means of a well-displayed notice or preferably through a conversation initiated by a nurse or physician (6). The American Medical Association also recommends that an authorized health professional serve as a chaperone whenever possible (6). This is, however, an expensive use of resources. As such, physicians working in clinics or office settings without nurses may opt to use receptionists as chaperones rather than perform the examination alone. Some may argue that this is inappropriate because it is beyond the scope of a receptionist’s roles and responsibilities. Regardless of who acts as a chaperone, the person chaperoning must be made aware of and feel comfortable with their role, as well as respecting patient confidentiality. In Canada, there are no national guidelines on the use of chaperones for children or adolescents. The standards of practice vary from province to province. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) states that although third parties are not mandatory, their presence during an intimate examination may contribute to both patient and physician comfort (7). The CPSO also advises that patients should be offered the option of having a third party present and, in cases where a physician is unable to provide such a person, he/she should inform the patient that they may bring in a person of their choosing with them (7). However, if the purpose of a chaperone is to protect both the patient and doctor, the choice of chaperone cannot lie solely in the hands of the patient or his/her family. This could actually put doctors at more risk and make them less able to defend themselves against false accusations. Ideally, the decision should involve input from both the patient and provider. Canadian paediatricians need to develop clear national guidelines on the use of medical chaperones, not only to protect Canadian adolescents and their health care providers, but also to improve patient satisfaction and to help decrease confusion and variability in individual physicians’ practices. As an essential first step in this process, an attempt should be made to better understand the needs and wishes of adolescents along with the needs of their health care providers. The results of this two-armed needs assessment will help inform the development of guidelines outlining the definition, roles and responsibilities of chaperones, who should act as chaperones and when a chaperone is needed. Clearly, the need for a chaperone is not specific to the nature of adolescence, but to the nature of the examination. However, adolescents have unique developmental needs and characteristics that warrant study of this issue in their population. This is both a patient and doctor safety concern that deserves our timely attention.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
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 enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,034

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,010
Communication savante0,0050,007
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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 Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations6
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyTravaux en français237 207