Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38938907›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Issues and Perspectives for the Study of Disruptive Clinician Behavior.

Manabu Fujimoto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Manabu FujimotoInstitute for Teaching and Learning, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article discusses issues and perspectives related to the study of disruptive clinician behavior (DCB) to improve patient safety and healthcare professionals' work environments. Multiple terminologies and ambiguous definitions have resulted in conceptual confusion in studies on DCB. In addition, subjective classifications have led the attributes of DCB to overlap and fluctuate. Therefore, we share Rosenberg's definition of DCB as "any inappropriate behavior, confrontation, or conflict, ranging from verbal abuse to physical and sexual harassment." It is recommended that DCB be understood as a hierarchical structure identified through statistical analysis of field survey data. Furthermore, a recurring list of items is duplicated across existing studies on DCB triggers, contributing factors, and influences. These items can be organized into separate path models based on their mutual relationships. Given these assumed models, we believe that further studies on DCB can shift toward elucidating the mechanisms of occurrence and impact. Finally, based on the path models, we recommend improving healthcare professionals' psychological and social states through a policy shift from "zero-tolerance" to "to err is human" as a priority issue for DCB prevention and countermeasures.

Indexed as

definition and attributiondisruptive clinician behaviorhierarchical structureinfluence mechanismoccurrence mechanism

Identifiers

PMID38938907
PMCPMC11210996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.