Evaluation of Defensive Medicine in patients with neurology deficit came to emergency department

Abstract

Due to the fact that the rate of medical malpractice is increasing day by day at a critical level, the legal-medical environment has led physicians to defensive medicine to be able to minimize the risks and complications of this abuse. The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of consulting physicians, emergency medicine specialists and emergency medicine residents about defense medicine in patients with symptoms of neurological defects referred to the emergency department and to investigate the willingness to accept defense medicine.

Methods: Data were prepared and printed by a questionnaire that was translated by the authors and approved by 6 professors of emergency medicine. The questionnaire included demographic information, professional experience, place of work, number of patients visited, opinion of physicians working in the field of defense medicine, questions about defense medicine of the 5-point Likert type, with 5 answers indicating strong opposition and 1 indicating Agree is complete. Specialist physicians and emergency medical assistant students working in Imam Reza Hospital and assistants who are present in the emergency department as consultants were included in the study. The data collection process took 6 months.

Results: Among the percentage of responses of the Likert scale, five options (strongly agree, agree, have no opinion, disagree and strongly disagree) of all emergency physicians on the item "emergency physicians are called willing to request unnecessary tests and advice. They do not give. " There is no statistical difference (P = 0.490). In contrast, there was a significant difference between the different percentages of responses: "The relevant consulting physician is reluctant to admit the patient, even if your patient is indicated in the emergency department." There was (P = 0.004) so that 48.5% of emergency physicians were completely opposed to this item. In items 3 to 5, there was a significant difference between the percentages of responses (<0.05). P).