Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrijnath, Bianca
dc.contributor.authorMazza, D.
dc.contributor.authorKosny, A.
dc.contributor.authorBunzli, S.
dc.contributor.authorSingh, N.
dc.contributor.authorRuseckaite, R.
dc.contributor.authorCollie, A.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T13:35:25Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T13:35:25Z
dc.date.created2016-05-08T19:30:24Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.date.submitted2016-05-09
dc.identifier.citationBrijnath, B. and Mazza, D. and Kosny, A. and Bunzli, S. and Singh, N. and Ruseckaite, R. and Collie, A. 2016. Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems? BMJ Open. 6 (1): pp. 1-8.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/33163
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009423
dc.description.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 semistructured 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.

dc.publisherBM J Group
dc.titleIs clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.dateSubmitted2016-05-09
dcterms.source.volume6
dcterms.source.number1
dcterms.source.titleBMJ Open
curtin.digitool.pid240133
curtin.note

This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

curtin.pubStatusPublished
curtin.refereedTRUE
curtin.departmentSchool of Occupational Therapy and Social Work
curtin.identifier.scriptidPUB-VC-ORD-SA-92993
curtin.identifier.elementsidELEMENTS-123716
curtin.accessStatusOpen access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record