It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Obstetrics and gynaecology always has reputation for being a highly litigious. The field of obstetrics and gynaecology is surrounded by different circumstances that stimulate the doctors to practice defensive medicine.
Methods
This study was directed to assess the extent and the possible effect of defensive medicine phenomenon (in term of knowledge and prevalence) on medical decision making among different grades of obstetric and gynaecologic Sudanese doctors, and to determine any experience of medical litigations with respect to sources and factors associated with it (in term of area of work, characteristics of the area at which the doctors worked, professionalism, hospitals systems...ect).
Results
A total of 117 doctors were approached, their distribution according to job description was as follow: consultants (42.7 %, 50\117) registrars (34.2 %, 40\117) and specialists (23.1 %, 27\117). The majority 89.7 % had the impression that litigation against doctors are increasing and 27.6 % had a direct experience of litigation. In this study less than one half (42.7 %) of the surveyed doctors knew the concept of defensive medicine and 71.8 % reported practicing one or another form of defensive medicine. The different sources of the litigations reported by the doctors included: maternal death (n = 15), perinatal death (n = 5), other {misdiagnosis, intra-uterine fetal death, uterine perforation, rupture uterus} (n = 4), fetal distress (n = 3), injury to viscera (n = 3) and shoulder dystocia (n = 2). In this study the experience of medical litigation was significantly observed among those who worked in area of blame culture (90.6 % Vs 56.5 %, P = 0.000). In logistic regression model, there was no significant difference between those who knew the concept of defence medicine and those who didn't.
Conclusion
There should be strategic plan to reduce the practice of defensive medicine and medical litigation against doctors.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer