Validity and Reliability of Rule Orientation Scale among Romanian Physicians-A Pilot Study.

Background and Objectives: Legal compliance is influenced by several factors, including individuals' attitudes about when breaking the law may be acceptable or justifiable. The rule orientation scale provides a measurement capable of predicting an individual's offensive behavior, regardless of the legal punishment. The current research is the first that aims to evaluate the construct validity of the translated Romanian version of the rule orientation scale. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted online among Romanian physicians in Dolj County. A 12-item questionnaire previously validated in the United States was used for this study. Results: A total of 69 physicians responded to the survey with a mean age of 38.53 ± 8.28 and an average experience of 10.49 ± 8.27 years. Physicians were prone to adhere to the law and found only a few instances when legal breaches were acceptable. Nonetheless, they deemed it permissible to violate the law when they did not know its content. These attitudes were not affected by respondents' ages, genders, numbers of years in practice, industries, or specialties. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was high (Cronbach's α = 0.925). Conclusions: The rule orientation scale validated in the Romanian language can be used to determine conditions under which individuals find it acceptable to break the law.

Patients' rights in physicians' practice during Covid-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Romania.

BACKGROUND: Although the Covid-19 epidemic challenged existing medical care norms and practices, it was no excuse for unlawful conduct. On the contrary, legal compliance proved essential in fighting the pandemic. Within the European legal framework for the pandemic, patients were still entitled to be treated equally, by a specialized physician, with the possibility of seeking a second medical opinion, in a confidential setting, following prior and informed consent. This study examines physicians' practices regarding patients' rights during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effects of age, experience, and specialty on physicians' behavior and preferences. Additionally, it explores the nexus of malpractice complaints, malpractice fear, and legal compliance. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of attending physicians and general practitioners to assess compliance with patients' rights regulations. Respondents were physicians practicing in private and public settings in Southwestern Romania from July 2021 to May 2022. RESULTS: 396 attending physicians and 109 general practitioners participated in the research. Attending physicians acknowledged patients' rights in 55.7% of statements, while general practitioners showed a slightly higher level of compliance at 59.9%. Emergency and Anesthesia and Intensive Care physicians showed the lowest compliance. There were no significant behavioral differences based on physicians' age, years in practice, work sector, or location. However, when faced with the question of prioritizing treatment for patients with similar medical conditions, 46.2% of attending physicians reported favoring the younger patients. This preference was common among physicians under 39. Additionally, over half of the attending physicians reported working outside their area of expertise due to staff shortages. Malpractice fear was high among physicians, although unrelated to patients' claims, legal compliance, or working outside the scope of practice. It resulted in pressure and behavioral changes. CONCLUSION: Adherence to patients' rights was low during the Covid-19 pandemic. Physicians could benefit from educational and administrative support to ensure better legal compliance. Further research is needed to determine if this behavior persists beyond the pandemic context.

Geographic and Specialty-Specific Disparities in Physicians' Legal Compliance: A National-Scale Assessment of Romanian Medical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Physicians must respect their patients' rights to informed consent, privacy, access to medical records, non-discrimination, treatment by a qualified doctor, and a second medical opinion. Compliance with patients' rights is mandatory, and legal breaches are considered medical malpractice under Romanian law. This is the first study to assess physicians' practices nationally and create a geographical map of legal compliance. RESULTS: We examined survey responses of 2978 physicians, including 1587 general practitioners and 1391 attending physicians from high-risk specialties. According to the findings, 46.67% of physicians' practices adhered to the law. Physicians' practices were homogenous across the country's regions. General practitioners were significantly more legally compliant than attending physicians were. Additionally, 94.02% of the physicians acknowledged malpractice anxiety, whereas only 17.67% had been accused of malpractice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the need for further research and to voice issues about Romanian physicians' low level of legal compliance. This study provides a starting point for future studies to evaluate the benefits of interventional strategies in this field. Healthcare facilities should provide physicians with easily available resources when they are unsure about their legal obligations, and establish an observer organization that can detect unlawful conduct. Interventions should concentrate on education programs and expert guidance.

Informed Consent in Mass Vaccination against COVID-19 in Romania: Implications of Bad Management.

Informing patients and obtaining valid informed consent were significant challenges for the COVID-19 immunization program. In Romania, the authorities issued a strategy for activities regarding vaccination against COVID-19, including the informed consent procedure. The lack of legal preparedness was evident when the medical personnel at the vaccination centers were provided with informed consent forms that did not respect the existing legal requirements. In addition, the protocol for persons seeking vaccination stated that the patient was supposed to receive the informed consent form from the receptionist in order to read and sign it. We analyzed the legal implications and the malpractice litigation risk associated with this practice. Due to essential deficiencies and in the absence of an official enactment of new regulations, we conclude that the vaccination consent process did not comply with the legal requirements. Implications include medical personnel's legal liability, loss of malpractice insurance coverage, and public mistrust that may have contributed to a low vaccination rate. Given the potential of future pandemics or other health crises, this may be a valuable lesson for developing better legal strategies.

Physicians' legal knowledge of informed consent and confidentiality. A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have been conducted to assess physicians' knowledge of legal standards. Nevertheless, prior research has demonstrated a dearth of medical law knowledge. Our study explored physicians' awareness of legal provisions concerning informed consent and confidentiality, which are essential components of the physician-patient relationship of trust. METHODS: A cross-sectional study assessed attending physicians' legal knowledge of informed consent and confidentiality regulations. The study was conducted in nine hospitals in Dolj County, Romania. Physicians were given a questionnaire with ten scenarios and instructed to select the response that best reflected their practice. We assessed the responses of physicians who claimed their practice to be entirely legal. Their legal knowledge was evaluated by comparing their answers to applicable laws. We also calculated a score for the physicians who admitted to committing a legal breach. RESULTS: Of the 305 respondents, 275 declared they never committed any law violation. However, their median correct answer score was 5.35 ± 1.66 out of 10. The specialty was the strongest predictor of legal knowledge, with emergency physicians rating the lowest and non-surgical physicians scoring the highest. Physicians who worked in both private and public sectors were better knowledgeable about legal issues than those who worked exclusively in the public sector. Results indicate that physicians are aware of the patient's right to informed consent but lack comprehensive understanding. While most physicians correctly answered simple questions, only a tiny minority identified the correct solution when confronted with ethical dilemmas. The physicians who acknowledged breaching the law, on the other hand, had a slightly higher knowledge score at 5.45 ± 2.18. CONCLUSION: Legal compliance remains relatively low due to insufficient legal awareness. Physicians display limited awareness of legal requirements governing patient autonomy, confidentiality, and access to health data. Law should be taught in all medical schools, including undergraduate programs, to increase physicians' legal knowledge and compliance.