Whose fault is it? Attribution of causes of patient violence among exposed and unexposed community‐based family physicians

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Guy Enosh ◽  
Anat Freund ◽  
Hadass Goldblatt ◽  
Anat Drach‐Zahavy ◽  
Michal Guindy ◽  
...  
1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P. Williams ◽  
C. A. Woodward ◽  
B. Ferrier ◽  
M. Cohen

This paper analyzes data from a 1993 survey of 395 newly established female and male family physicians in Ontario, Canada, to examine the relationship between practice organization and gender. Previous research suggests that younger physicians, particularly women, tend to enter group practice. Compared to solo practice, groups may offer more predictable incomes, more manageable workloads, peer collaboration and review, and economies of scale. Further, female physicians in groups may develop distinctive styles of collaborative medicine. The results show that a majority of physicians in our cohort are in private community-based group practice. However, while many groups share premises, staff and expenses, and many have common charts and practice guidelines, only a minority incorporate regular meetings to discuss business or patient care, have shared care of hospitalized patients, or audits of physicians' practices. Few gender differences are observed in private group practice: although women physicians attract larger proportions of female patients than do their male colleagues, women and men organize their groups in similar ways and have similarly strong patient-centred attitudes.


2006 ◽  
Vol 81 (Suppl) ◽  
pp. S25-S29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen E. Ellsbury ◽  
Jan D. Carline ◽  
Marjorie D. Wenrich

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-135
Author(s):  
Zachary Levin ◽  
Peter Meyers ◽  
Lars Peterson ◽  
Andy Habib ◽  
Andrew Bazemore

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (04) ◽  
pp. 356-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsehaiwork Sunny Fenikilé ◽  
Kathryn Ellerbeck ◽  
Melissa K. Filippi ◽  
Christine M. Daley

AimWe explored potential barriers to adoption of recommended screening for autism by family physicians at 18- and 24-month well-child visits.BackgroundThe American Academy of Pediatrics recommends early detection and intervention of autism through the use of a standardized autism-specific screening tool on all children at the 18- and 24-month well-child visits. However, not all family physicians screen for autism.MethodsThree focus groups and six semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 family physicians in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Verbatim transcripts were inductively coded; data were analyzed using standard text analysis.FindingsParticipants had differing views on the increased incidence of autism. Most participants attributed the increase to changes in diagnostic criteria. There was no consensus on the benefit of implementing universal screening for autism during the 18- or 24-month visit. Many preferred to identify potential problems through general developmental assessments and observations. No participants used specific screening tools for autism, and only one participant was aware of such a tool (M-CHAT). Lack of adequate training on child development and screening methods as well as limited availability of community-based resources to manage children with autism was seen as major barriers to routine screening. Suggested solutions included working toward a stronger evidence base, improving physician training and continuing education, and making systemic changes in healthcare. In conclusion, universal screening for autism at the 18- and 24-month visits is not widely accepted, nor is it implemented by family physicians.


1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoinette S. Peters ◽  
Nancy Clark-Chiarelli ◽  
Susan D. Block

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document