Working your way around the health-care system can be overwhelming. This is especially hard when care takes place in health systems under stress. Show However as a patient, you have rights about how you’re treated. This includes not just your actual therapy, but how you’re spoken to, how your records are handled and even whether you wish to be treated at all. Now, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care has updated its charter of patient rights. The idea is to promote a more active role in health care for patients (and their carers) by reminding them of their seven rights: access to health care, safety, respect, partnership, information, privacy and giving feedback. Join 175,000 people who subscribe to free evidence-based news.But what do these rights really mean when it comes to day-to-day issues you or your family might face with your GP, in hospital or in a nursing home? Example 1: leaving hospital earlyImagine an elderly patient who has been hospitalised with an infection. After a couple of days of treatment, she wants to go home to live alone. The patient’s doctors are worried she won’t be able to take care of herself and try to convince her to move into a rehabilitation facility. She refuses. Respect means the patient has the right to make her own choices, even if they could result in harm. But this doesn’t mean just abandoning the patient to her rights. A first step is the right to information, to ensure she understands the risks of going home. Partnership requires communication with the patient herself as well as other people she chooses, like family members and friends. This helps support the patient. Example 2: dementia restraintsMore than half of all people in permanent residential aged care have dementia. Sometimes patients become physically aggressive, becoming a danger to themselves and others. Physical and chemical restraints for these people has been widespread, and is being considered by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Restraints won’t be the right thing in all cases. Whether it’s right for a particular person requires balancing respect for the patient’s own views and dignity, with other people’s rights to safety. Respect can be facilitated by working in partnership with the patient and their family to identify safe options other than restraint. Example 3: health information disclosureTrips to the emergency department are often scary and sensitive. The visit can be even worse if you feel others can overhear your conversations with doctors or nurses. More than one in ten people who went to the emergency department of a major Melbourne hospital reported this experience. These people felt the loss of their privacy. It also might fail to show respect, dignity and consideration, as required in the right to respect. But not every unwanted disclosure of health information will be wrong. Some might even be necessary to meet other health-care rights. For instance, an emergency department with curtains instead of walled rooms to help people or equipment move more freely might meet the safety right even though it risks a patient’s right to privacy. But the charter at least means hospitals and treating teams have to justify any unwanted disclosure of health information. It also means patients who feel uncomfortable can give feedback, another of their rights. How does Australia stack up?Other countries have created similar lists of patients’ rights, including New Zealand and Scotland. The most valuable part of the Australian charter is improving patient and carer understanding of existing health-care rights. This makes it easier to know when to complain to a state or territory complaints commission, or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Although the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is releasing more resources for patients, its charter may not go far enough in protecting groups who experience systemic bias in their health-care interactions. This includes many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Another pitfall of the charter is its non-binding nature. It describes the rights patients should expect but it does little to enforce them. This can leave the charter as something of a toothless tiger, an issue also discussed internationally. The charter also doesn’t deal with potential patient responsibilities. These are the obligations consumers have for their own health, like treating staff considerately and keeping medical appointments. It’s hard to see how one can exist without the other. If so, you’ll be interested in our free daily newsletter. It’s filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand what’s going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.
Editor and General Manager Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go. If you found the article you just read to be insightful, you’ll be interested in our free daily newsletter. It’s filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand what’s going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you. Comment on this article
Patient rights are those basic rule of conduct between patients and medical caregivers as well as the institutions and people that support them. A patient is anyone who has requested to be evaluated by or who is being evaluated by any healthcare professional. Medical caregivers include hospitals, healthcare personnel, as well as insurance agencies or any payors of medical-related costs. This is a broad definition, but there are other slightly more specific definitions. For example, a legal definition is as follows; patient rights is general statement adopted by most healthcare professionals, covering such matters as access to care, patient dignity, confidentiality, and consent to treatment. No matter what definition is used, most patients and doctors are finding that many of the details of patient rights have changed and are continuing to change over time. This article is designed to give the reader a basic introduction to patient rights. Often, people do not realize their specific rights at the time of their care because those rights are either not clearly defined or included in a bundle of papers that patients need to sign during registration. Some basic rights are that all patients that seek care at an emergency department have the right to a screening exam and patients that cannot afford to pay are not turned away. The details of these rights are detailed in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) laws in the U.S. In addition, many people think that patient rights are only applicable between themselves and their doctor. This is not the situation; as stated in the first definition, patient rights can be extensive and exist between many people and institutions. Most notably, they can exist between patients, any medical caregiver, hospitals, laboratories, insurers and even secretarial help and housekeepers that may have access to patients or their medical records. It is not possible in this article to list all of patient's rights. However, most written rights that doctors and hospital personnel have patients read (and sign) are abbreviated statements that are summaries of all or parts of the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics. Many of these patient rights have been written into state or federal laws and if violated, may result in fines or even prison time. This article will focus on the doctor patient relationship and present areas of greatest concerns. Readers should understand that in most instances, when the word "doctor" is used, the reader may substitute many other names such as nurse, caregiver, hospital, insurer, doctor's office personnel and many others. A patient's rights in relation to their doctors occur at many different levels, and in all specialties. As stated above, the American Medical Association (AMA) outlines fundamental elements of the doctor-patient relationship in their Code of Medical Ethics. These rights include the following in the 2012-2013 book (568 pages!) and have the various topics covered in great detail:
According to the AMA, physicians should also serve as advocates for patients and promote the basic patient rights.
Open and honest communication is an integral part of the doctor-patient relationship. The AMA's Code of Medical Ethics clearly states that it is a fundamental ethical requirement that a physician should at all times deal honestly and openly with patients. Patients have a right to know their past and present medical status and to be free of any mistaken beliefs concerning their conditions. Situations occasionally occur in which a patient suffers significant medical complications that may have resulted from the physician's mistake or judgment. In these situations, the physician is ethically required to inform the patient of all the facts necessary to ensure understanding of what has occurred. Only through full disclosure is a patient able to make informed decisions regarding future medical care. Past patient surveys have found that virtually all patients desired some acknowledgment of even minor errors. For both moderate and severe mistakes, patients were significantly more likely to consider legal action if the physician did not disclose the error. Findings such as these reinforce the importance of open communication between physician and patient.
Part of communication in medicine involves informed consent for treatment and procedures. This is considered a basic patient right. Informed consent involves the patient's understanding of the following:
Closely associated with informed consent, voluntary consent means that the patient understands these concepts; the patient rights include the following:
A patient must be competent in order to give voluntary and informed consent. Thus, competent consent involves the ability to make and stand by an informed, freely made decision. In clinical practice, competence is often equated with capacity. Decision-making capacity refers to a patient's ability to make decisions about accepting healthcare recommendations. To have adequate decision-making capacity, a patient must understand the options, the consequences associated with the various options, and the costs and benefits of these consequences by relating them to personal values and priorities. Some factors may make a patient incapable of providing competent consent either temporarily or permanently. Examples include the following:
Patients that are judged incompetent (often determined by two independent physicians or in some instances, by a legal decree) can have others legally permitted to make medical decisions for the patient.
Law and ethics state that the doctor-patient interaction should remain confidential. The physician should never reveal confidential information unless the patient wants this information disclosed to others, or unless required to do so by law. If the release of information is warranted, information should be released in the form of an official signed document. Confidentiality is subject to certain exceptions because of legal, ethical, and social considerations.
Most people agree that everyone deserves the basic right to healthcare, but how far that right goes has been the center of America's healthcare debate; even with the Supreme Court upholding the current new federal healthcare laws, the debate continues, even to the point that the new laws may undergo repeal. Within the existing social structure, inequities in access to healthcare are widespread. Because of numerous inequities in healthcare that often involve such factors as race, socioeconomic status, and gender, politicians have tried for many years to change the healthcare system and are likely to continue to intervene and change these "patient rights." America's health care system consists of a patchwork of healthcare programs and insurance that includes private health insurance, HMOs, Medicaid, and Medicare, among others. However, more than 49 million Americans are uninsured according to 2010 census data, and the government has been forced to pass various laws in order for America's health care system to provide more equal care. An example of such a law is the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). The COBRA regulations are federal legislation that mandates an evaluation of patients who seek medical attention at emergency facilities. If an emergency care institution refuses to provide care, the institution and health care providers are held responsible and liable. These regulations prevent health care institutions from refusing needed care to people without money or health insurance.
In order to provide continuing health insurance for the recently unemployed, COBRA provisions also permit continuation of coverage through the workplace. Recently, many federal and civil lawsuits have been filed and both won and lost against HMOs for failing to provide needed care because of the drive to reduce health care costs. The outcome of such lawsuits is sometimes unclear, but the quality of provided care is on the minds of all who obtain health care.
The doctor has the duty to continue a patient's healthcare after consenting to provide medical care unless the patient no longer requires treatment for the illness. The doctor must notify the patient and transfer care to another acceptable doctor if planning to withdraw care. The doctors may be charged with negligent abandonment for ending the relationship with the patient without appropriate referral, transfer, or discharge. Although doctors are free to choose which patients they will treat, doctors should offer optimal care for patients who need emergency first-aid treatment.
Along with the right to adequate and appropriate healthcare, competent adult patients have the right to refuse health care (it is wise to document that the patient clearly understands the risks and benefits of their decision), but exceptions do occur.
One way to look at patients' rights is to view the legal implications that occur when patients' rights are violated. Torts, which are defined as civil injustices recognized as grounds for a lawsuit, are often involved in medical injury claims and malpractice claims. Negligence is the basis for the majority of claims involving medical issues in the United States. A civil negligence claim involves a plaintiff and a defendant. In order to succeed in court, the plaintiff (the patient, in this case) must prove four elements in medical malpractice: (1) a preexisting duty, (2) a breach of duty, (3) damage, and (4) immediate cause.
In order for the plaintiff to prove negligence of the physician, all four of these components must exist at least in the opinion of a judge or jury that decides the outcome.
The issue of patient rights in medical research has developed over the years because of unethical practices that have occurred in the past. The Nuremberg Code was formulated in 1947 because of the trial of Nazi physicians who had experimented on unwilling subjects. The Code states that "the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." In 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki softened the stipulations of the Nuremberg Code by allowing the legal guardians of incompetent persons to provide consent on their behalf, at least for "therapeutic" research. After the exploitation of subjects in the Tuskegee study of syphilis, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was created in 1974. The Commission discussed the problem of using vulnerable groups as research subjects. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association proposed seven requirements that provide a framework for evaluating the ethics of clinical research studies that is generally adopted by medical researchers:
Clinical trial: As in medical treatment, patients have the right to refuse to participate in clinical research, and this should not affect their care. Enrollment in a clinical trial also should not prevent a patient from obtaining timely and appropriate medical care.
In summary, patient rights are continually evolving and are linked to governmental agencies and their regulations. Failure to respect these patient rights may have severe penalties imposed on those individuals, businesses, and ancillary health agencies that violate patient rights. However, if patients have rights, they should remember that patient rights also come with responsibilities. For example, patients need to be responsible to listen and act on the advice of their doctor(s), to tell the truth when asked questions (for example, "Do you use any illegal drugs," "How many alcoholic beverages do you drink per day" and many others). When there is mutual respect and honesty between healthcare professionals and patients, there is seldom any problems with patient rights.
The Affordable Care Act puts consumers back in charge of their health care. Under the law, a new "Patient's Bill of Rights" gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health.
Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care - not administrative costs. Restricts Annual Dollar Limits on Coverage: Annual limits on your health benefits will be phased out by 2014. Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan's network. Since the Patient's Bill of Rights was enacted, the Affordable Care Act has provided additional rights and protections. The health care law:
SOURCE:
American Medical Association. Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. 2012-2013, 2012, 1-568 pp. HealthCare.gov. Patient's Bill of Rights. CCIIO.gov. Patient's Bill of Rights. whitehouse.gov A New Patient's Bill of Rights. ASPE.hhs.gov. Overview of the Uninsured in the United States: A Summary of the 2011 Current Population Survey. |