 |
| Research article summary (published 29 Nov 2002): |
|
Free Full Text! See links below |
How much do doctors know about consent and capacity?
Full Abstract
To assess knowledge of capacity issues across different medical specialties we conducted a cross-sectional survey with a structured questionnaire at academic meetings, lectures and conferences. Of 190 individuals who received the questionnaire 129 (68%) responded-35 general practitioners, 31 psychiatrists, 29 old-age physicians [corrected] and 34 final year medical students. Correct answers on capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment were given by 58% of the psychiatrists, 34% of the geriatricians, 20% of the general practitioners and 15% of the students. 15% of all respondents wrongly believed that a competent adult could lawfully be treated against his or her will, with no obvious differences by specialty. As judged by this survey, issues of capacity and consent deserve more attention in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.
Learn Faster Today Improve your study skills
Author information
Author/s: Jackson, Elizabeth (E); Warner, James (J);
Affiliation: Joint Homelessness Team, Soho Centre for Health and Care, 1 Frith Street, London W1D 3HZ, UK. email(-atsign-)lizjackson.freeserve.co.uk
Journal and publication information
Publication Type: Journal Article; Multicenter Study
Journal: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (J R Soc Med), published in England. (Language: eng)
Reference: 2002-Dec; vol 95 (issue 12) : pp 601-3
Dates: Created 2002/12/03; Completed 2002/12/23; Revised 2004/11/17;
PMID: 12461146, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 11/6/2008)
Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.
Comments and Corrections
CommentIn: J R Soc Med. 2003 Feb;96(2):102. (PMID: 12562988)
CommentIn: J R Soc Med. 2003 Mar;96(3):157. (PMID: 12612125)
CommentIn: J R Soc Med. 2003 May;96(5):257. (PMID: 12724451)
CommentIn: J R Soc Med. 2003 Sep;96(9):474. (PMID: 12949217)
ErratumIn: J R Soc Med. 2003 Jan;96(1):54.
External Links for this article (including full text providers, if available):
Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.
This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.
MeSH headings (categories)
This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.
|
|
Related articles
This article has not been indexed for related articles as yet, however you can still use the live related article search links below.
See a large map of 100+ related articles.