
Some aspects of the theory of errors of doctors
Author(s) -
Murat Makhambetchin,
Kayrat Shakeyev
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
zdravoohranenie rossijskoj federacii
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2412-0723
pISSN - 0044-197X
DOI - 10.47470/0044-197x-2021-65-2-159-165
Subject(s) - mistake , virtuous circle and vicious circle , psychology , quality (philosophy) , quackery , misconduct , perspective (graphical) , social psychology , epistemology , medicine , computer science , alternative medicine , law , political science , philosophy , pathology , artificial intelligence , economics , macroeconomics
The development of clinical thinking and the improvement of medical care largely depend on doctors and society’s attitude to medical errors. A balanced, rational perspective to medical errors is critical with an understanding of the main aspects of medication errors. The paper presents two important aspects of the problem of medical errors - their probability and, in a sense, their routine, as well as the role of collective relationships in shaping an objective attitude of doctors to errors. The article argues that the correct action of a doctor does not mean that they are unmistakable. The factors that determine the complexity of medicine are listed. The actual and ambiguous effectiveness of the medicine is considered. It is argued that the development of evidence-based medicine is evidence of the relativity of knowledge in medicine. The basic variants of the relationship of doctors in the collective are given. The role of collegiality in improving the professional experience and quality of medical care is specified. It has been shown that the absence of objective criteria of guilt or innocence of a doctor in error exacerbates the problem of errors. It emphasizes the flaw of equating all errors with misconduct and the unilateralism of such an approach in preventing mistakes. A vicious circle is presented, where the traditionally negative attitude towards doctors who made a mistake ultimately leads to concealment of errors, a decrease in the number and quality of error analysis, stagnation in the development of clinical thinking, an increase in the number of errors and, accordingly, the legal tightening of demand for medical errors.