Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain general practitioners' perceptions of medicolegal risk when screening for prostate cancer, and explore the potential impact of three national guidelines on perceptions and clinical practice. DESIGN: Postal survey in August 1997. PARTICIPANTS: 219 randomly selected GPs in New South Wales (65% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Response to case scenarios; perceptions of medicolegal risk and protection afforded by national guidelines before and after reading extracts of three national guidelines; ratings of current and potential strategies to increase GPs' sense of medicolegal protection. RESULTS: 90% (95% CI, 86.5%-94.3%) would screen an asymptomatic male patient and 61% (95% CI, 54.2%-67.2%) indicated GPs would be at risk if they did not screen. Although significant changes in responses were found after respondents had read guideline extracts, 46% (95% CI, 39.5%-52.7%) continued to perceive medicolegal risk if screening was not performed. About two-thirds (65%; 95% CI, 59.9%-72.5%) supported a clear statement about the legal status of guidelines in a court of law to increase their sense of medicolegal protection. CONCLUSIONS: Even when made aware of national evidence-based guidelines against prostate cancer screening, GPs in our survey perceived limited hypothetical medicolegal protection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Girgis et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: