MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W78160283

Zero tolerance some of the time? Doctors, discipline and sexual abuse in Ontario.

2007· article· en· W78160283 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sanda Rodgers

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésZero toleranceSexual abuseMedicineResistance (ecology)CriminologyPolitical scienceFamily medicineSuicide preventionPsychologyPoison controlMedical emergency
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Confirming College's commitment to the safety of the public by affirming the philosophy of Zero Tolerance of and in accordance with that philosophy, developing policies, procedures, practices, and education programmes that support it. (1) The purpose of the provisions of this Code with respect to abuse of patients by members is to encourage the reporting of such to provide funding for therapy and counselling for patients who have been sexually abused by members and, ultimately, to eradicate the abuse of patients by members. (2) Introduction In the early 1990s, many provincial regulatory Colleges governing the practice of medicine began to reexamine their response to doctors' abuse of patients. College investigations revealed that the abuse of patients did occur, and that it could not be explained as occasional or anomalous. In fact, the abuse of patients was well documented, although relatively little had been done to respond to the abuse or to protect patients. In the decade that followed, many of the regulatory Colleges commendably undertook specific initiatives to respond to physician often in the face of the outraged resistance of their members. (3) In 1991, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) established a Task Force on the exploitation of patients. (4) Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec each undertook studies of their own. (5) The study undertaken in Ontario demonstrated categorically that the response by the CPSO to patient complaints of abuse was experienced as re-abusing by the complainants. Penalties imposed by CPSO disciplinary committees were seen as inappropriately lenient, and as manifesting overarching identification with the accused physicians. Minimal penalties were rightly understood by the complainants, and those concerned about violence in all of its forms, as little more than a slap on the abuser's professional wrist. At the same time, when the discipline committee did respond seriously to physician abuse and imposed significant penalties on abusers, the Ontario courts regularly overturned the penalties, substituting less onerous ones and undermining the efforts of the CPSO to respond seriously to abuse. (6) In Ontario, the CPSO wrote reports, produced detailed policies and engaged in educational initiatives for both their professional members and for the public. The CPSO took important steps to increase the information available about abuse in the health care context and to open up the disciplinary process to public scrutiny. Policies, discussions and disciplinary decisions of CPSO committees were posted on its website, as were the disciplinary histories of individual doctors. The Province of Ontario and the CPSO demonstrated a commitment to eradicating physician abuse that has been unmatched elsewhere. Ontario undertook major legislative reform of the regulatory structure applicable to all health care professions, introducing legislative changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act (7) designed to implement zero tolerance of abuse and to impose license revocation as a mandatory penalty for the most serious cases of abuse. (8) Broad changes were made to the Act, introducing new provisions designed to address the exploitation of patients by health care professionals. (9) Recognition that abuse of patients is unprofessional and constitutes misconduct was not new. Prior legislation defined professional misconduct to include impropriety with a patient. However, the revised legislation included specific measures defining sexual abuse, imposing an obligation on all health care professionals to report abuse by other health care providers, (10) introducing specific penalties and restrictive reinstatement provisions, and listing specific forms of misconduct punishable by mandatory license revocation. …

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,080
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,993

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations4
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207