4.5 Article

Doctors' emotional reactions to recent death of a patient: cross sectional study of hospital doctors

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 327, 期 7408, 页码 185-189

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7408.185

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To describe doctors' emotional reactions to the recent death of an average patient and to explore the effects of level of training on doctors' reactions. Design Cross sectional study using quantitative data. Setting Two academic teaching hospitals in the United States. Participants 188 doctors (attending physicians (equivalent to UK consultants), residents (equivalent to UK senior house officers), and interns (equivalent to UK junior house officers)) who cared for 68 patients who died in the hospital. Main outcome measures Doctors' experiences in providing care, their emotional reactions to the patient's death, and their use of coping and social resources to manage their emotions. Results Most doctors (139/188, 74%) reported satisfying experiences in caring for a dying patient. Doctors reported moderate levels of emotional impact (mean 4.7 (SD 2.4) on a 0-10 scale) from the death. Women and those doctors who had cared for the patient for a longer time experienced stronger emotional reactions. Level of training was not related to emotional reactions, but interns reported needing significantly more emotional support than attending physicians. Although most junior doctors discussed the patient's death with an attending physician, less than a quarter of interns and residents found senior teaching staff (attending physicians) to be the most helpful source of support. Conclusions Doctors who spend a longer time caring for their patients get to know them better but this also makes them more vulnerable to feelings of loss when these patients die. Medical teams may benefit from debriefing within the department to give junior doctors an opportunity to share emotional responses and reflect on the patient's death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据