Assessment of surgery residents' knowledge of medical ethics and law. Implications for training and education.

Medical ethics and law are essential topics that should be included in medical residency programs. However, surgery training programs in Iran lack a specific course in medical ethics and law, which can lead to patient dissatisfaction with surgical outcomes. This study aimed to assess surgery residents' knowledge of medical ethics and law and suggest improvements for future residency programs. This descriptive cross-sectional study involved 112 surgery residents from six teaching hospitals. A valid and reliable questionnaire comprising 15 items on medical ethics and 12 items on medical law was used to assess participants' knowledge. Most participants were female (31-40 years old), and their mean knowledge score for medical ethics was 3.26±0.53 out of 5, with the lowest score in "futile treatment and DNR orders." The mean knowledge score for medical law was 3.69±0.69, with the lowest score in "surrogate decision-maker." Age did not affect residents' knowledge, but gender did, with female residents demonstrating significantly better knowledge of medical ethics (3.344/5 vs. 3.112/5) and law (3.789/5 vs. 3.519/5). Surgery residents had a relatively favorable knowledge of medical ethics and law, but they require further training in some areas to improve their knowledge. Training should include journal clubs, role-play programs, standardized patient programs, and debates to achieve better results, as purely didactic lectures appear inadequate.

The main indicators for Iranian hospital ethical accreditation.

INTRODUCTION: The application of organizational ethics in hospitals is one of the novel ways to improve medical ethics. Nowadays achieving efficient and sufficient ethical hospital indicators seems to be inevitable. In this connection, the present study aims to determine the best indicators in hospital accreditation. METHODS: 69 indicators in 11 fields to evaluate hospital ethics were achieved through a five-step qualitative and quantitative study including literature review, expert focus group, Likert scale survey, 3 rounded Delphi, and content validity measurement. Expert focus group meeting was conducted, employing Nominal Group Technique (NGT). After running NGT, a three rounded Delphi and parallel to Delphi and a Likert scale survey were performed to obtain objective indicators for each domain. The experts were all healthcare professionals who were also medical ethics researchers, teachers, or PhD students. Content validity measurements were computed, using the viewpoints of two different expert groups, some ethicists, and some health care professionals (n=46). RESULTS: After conducting NGT, Delphi, Likert survey, 11 main domains were listed including:  Informed consent, Medical confidentiality, Physician-patient economic relations, Ethics consultation policy in the hospital, Ethical charter of hospital, Breaking bad medical news protocol, Respect for the patients' rights, Clinical ethics committee, Spiritual and palliative care unit programs in the hospitals, Healthcare professionals' communication skills, and Equitable access to the healthcare. Also 71 objective indicators for these 11 domains were listed in 11 tables with 5 to 8 indicators per table. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) measurements were done and 69 indicators were highlighted. CONCLUSION: The domains listed in this study seem to be the most important ones for evaluating hospital ethics programs and services. Healthcare organizations' accreditation and ranking are crucial for the improvement of healthcare services. Ethics programs would also motivate hospitals to improve their services and move towards patients' satisfaction. In this regard, more involvement of bioethicists can help healthcare organizations to develop ethics programs and ensure ethics-based practice in hospitals.