Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The reasons that doctors may refuse or be reluctant to treat have not been widely explored in the medical literature. To understand the ethical implications of reluctance to treat there is a need to recognise the constraints of doctors working in complex systems and to consider how these constraints may influence reluctance. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these constraints using the case of compensable injury in the Australian context.

Design: Between September and December 2012, a qualitative investigation involving face-to-face semi-structured interviews examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) facilitating return to work in people with compensable injuries.

Setting: Compensable injury management in general practice in Melbourne, Australia.

Participants: 25 GPs who were treating, or had treated a patient with compensable injury.

Results: The practice of clinicians refusing treatment was described by all participants. While most GPs reported refusal to treat among their colleagues in primary and specialist care, many participants also described their own reluctance to treat people with compensable injuries. Reasons offered included time and financial burdens, in addition to the clinical complexities involved in compensable injury management.

Conclusions: In the case of compensable injury management, reluctance and refusal to treat is likely to have a domino effect by increasing the time and financial burden of clinically complex patients on the remaining clinicians. This may present a significant challenge to an effective, sustainable compensation system. Urgent research is needed to understand the extent and implications of reluctance and refusal to treat and to identify strategies to engage clinicians in treating people with compensable injuries.
Original languageEnglish
Article number009423
Pages (from-to)1 - 7
Number of pages7
JournalBMJ Open
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Cite this

@article{bebae0eccde649d2bc317d5b1d6ae8f4,
title = "Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?",
abstract = "Objective: The reasons that doctors may refuse or be reluctant to treat have not been widely explored in the medical literature. To understand the ethical implications of reluctance to treat there is a need to recognise the constraints of doctors working in complex systems and to consider how these constraints may influence reluctance. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these constraints using the case of compensable injury in the Australian context.Design: Between September and December 2012, a qualitative investigation involving face-to-face semi-structured interviews examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) facilitating return to work in people with compensable injuries.Setting: Compensable injury management in general practice in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: 25 GPs who were treating, or had treated a patient with compensable injury. Results: The practice of clinicians refusing treatment was described by all participants. While most GPs reported refusal to treat among their colleagues in primary and specialist care, many participants also described their own reluctance to treat people with compensable injuries. Reasons offered included time and financial burdens, in addition to the clinical complexities involved in compensable injury management.Conclusions: In the case of compensable injury management, reluctance and refusal to treat is likely to have a domino effect by increasing the time and financial burden of clinically complex patients on the remaining clinicians. This may present a significant challenge to an effective, sustainable compensation system. Urgent research is needed to understand the extent and implications of reluctance and refusal to treat and to identify strategies to engage clinicians in treating people with compensable injuries.",
author = "Bianca Brijnath and Danielle Mazza and Agnieszka Kosny and Samantha Bunzli and Nabita Singh and Rasa Ruseckaite and Alex Collie",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009423",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "1 -- 7",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems? / Brijnath, Bianca; Mazza, Danielle; Kosny, Agnieszka ; Bunzli, Samantha; Singh, Nabita; Ruseckaite, Rasa; Collie, Alex.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 6, No. 1, 009423, 2016, p. 1 - 7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?

AU - Brijnath, Bianca

AU - Mazza, Danielle

AU - Kosny, Agnieszka

AU - Bunzli, Samantha

AU - Singh, Nabita

AU - Ruseckaite, Rasa

AU - Collie, Alex

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Objective: The reasons that doctors may refuse or be reluctant to treat have not been widely explored in the medical literature. To understand the ethical implications of reluctance to treat there is a need to recognise the constraints of doctors working in complex systems and to consider how these constraints may influence reluctance. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these constraints using the case of compensable injury in the Australian context.Design: Between September and December 2012, a qualitative investigation involving face-to-face semi-structured interviews examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) facilitating return to work in people with compensable injuries.Setting: Compensable injury management in general practice in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: 25 GPs who were treating, or had treated a patient with compensable injury. Results: The practice of clinicians refusing treatment was described by all participants. While most GPs reported refusal to treat among their colleagues in primary and specialist care, many participants also described their own reluctance to treat people with compensable injuries. Reasons offered included time and financial burdens, in addition to the clinical complexities involved in compensable injury management.Conclusions: In the case of compensable injury management, reluctance and refusal to treat is likely to have a domino effect by increasing the time and financial burden of clinically complex patients on the remaining clinicians. This may present a significant challenge to an effective, sustainable compensation system. Urgent research is needed to understand the extent and implications of reluctance and refusal to treat and to identify strategies to engage clinicians in treating people with compensable injuries.

AB - Objective: The reasons that doctors may refuse or be reluctant to treat have not been widely explored in the medical literature. To understand the ethical implications of reluctance to treat there is a need to recognise the constraints of doctors working in complex systems and to consider how these constraints may influence reluctance. The aim of this paper is to illustrate these constraints using the case of compensable injury in the Australian context.Design: Between September and December 2012, a qualitative investigation involving face-to-face semi-structured interviews examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices of general practitioners (GPs) facilitating return to work in people with compensable injuries.Setting: Compensable injury management in general practice in Melbourne, Australia. Participants: 25 GPs who were treating, or had treated a patient with compensable injury. Results: The practice of clinicians refusing treatment was described by all participants. While most GPs reported refusal to treat among their colleagues in primary and specialist care, many participants also described their own reluctance to treat people with compensable injuries. Reasons offered included time and financial burdens, in addition to the clinical complexities involved in compensable injury management.Conclusions: In the case of compensable injury management, reluctance and refusal to treat is likely to have a domino effect by increasing the time and financial burden of clinically complex patients on the remaining clinicians. This may present a significant challenge to an effective, sustainable compensation system. Urgent research is needed to understand the extent and implications of reluctance and refusal to treat and to identify strategies to engage clinicians in treating people with compensable injuries.

UR - http://goo.gl/dTv2oa

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009423

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009423

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 1

M1 - 009423

ER -