Background: Medical confidentiality underpins the doctor–patient relationship and ensures privacy so that intimate information can be exchanged to improve, preserve, and protect the health of the patient. The right to information applies to the patient alone, and, only if expressly desired, can it be extended to family members. However, it must be remembered that one of the primary tenets of family medicine is precisely that patient care occurs ideally within the context of the family. There may be, then, certain occasions (...) when difficulties will arise as to the extent of the information provided to family members.Objectives: This study aimed to describe family doctors’ attitudes to confidentiality and providing patient information to relatives as well as their justifications for sharing information.Method: A descriptive postal questionnaire was self-administered by family doctors.Results: Of 227 doctors, 95.1% provided information to a patient’s family and over a third disclosed information to others without prior patient consent.Conclusions: The findings reveal that family doctors should pay more attention to their patients’ rights to information, privacy, and confidentiality, and reflect very carefully on the fine balance between this and the occasional need for the support and collaboration of family members in delivery of care. Emphasis should be placed on ethics and legal problems during undergraduate education and in-service training of doctors. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the attitudes of medical personnel towards terminally ill patients and their right to be fully informed. DESIGN: Self-administered questionnaire composed of 56 closed questions. SETTING: Three general hospitals and eleven health centres in Granada (Spain). The sample comprised 168 doctors and 207 nurses. RESULTS: A high percentage of medical personnel (24.1%) do not think that informing the terminally ill would help them face their illness with greater serenity. Eighty-four per cent think the patient's own home is the (...) best place to die: 8.9% of the subjects questioned state that the would not like to be informed of an incurable illness. CONCLUSION: In our opinion any information given should depend on the patient's personality, the stage of the illness and family circumstances. Our study confirms that a hospital is not the ideal environment for attending to the needs of the terminally ill and their families. (shrink)

Background: Sharing information with relatives of elderly patients in primary care and in hospital has to fit into the complex set of obligations, justifications and pressures concerning the provision of information, and the results of some studies point to the need for further empirical studies exploring issues of patient autonomy, privacy and informed consent in the day-to-day care of older people.Objectives: To know the frequency with which “capable” patients over 65 years of age receive information when admitted to hospital, the (...) information offered to the families concerned, the person who gives consent for medical intervention, and the degree of satisfaction with the information received and the healthcare provided.Method: A descriptive questionnaire given to 200 patients and 200 relatives during the patients’ stay in hospital.Results: Only 5% of patients confirmed that they had been asked whether information could be given to their relatives. A significantly higher proportion of relatives received information on the successive stages of the care offered than did patients themselves. As the age of the patients increased, so the number who were given information, understood the information and were asked for their consent for complementary tests decreased. The degree of satisfaction with the information offered was high for both patients and relatives , despite the irregularities observed.Conclusions: The capacity of elderly patients to participate in the decision-making process is frequently doubted simply because they have reached a certain age and it is thought that relatives should act as their representatives. In Spain, the opinion of the family and doctors appears to play a larger role in making decisions than does the concept of patient autonomy. (shrink)

In Spain, any person under the age of 18 is a minor. Generally, minors lack the legal capacity to take legally binding actions because they are deemed incapable of legally binding consent. Spanish civil law recognises, however, that the child, in accordance with the law and being sufficiently mature, may act for himself. It stands, then, that consent, as expressed by the “sufficiently mature” minor, should be legally valid.

Background: By providing healthcare to adolescents, a major opportunity is created to help them cope with the challenges in their lives, develop healthy behaviour and become responsible healthcare consumers. Confidentiality is a major issue in adolescent healthcare, and its perceived absence may be the main barrier to an adolescent seeking medical care. Little is known, however, about confidentiality for adolescents in primary care practices in Spain.Objective: To ascertain the attitudes of Spanish family doctors towards the right of adolescents to confidentiality (...) in different healthcare situations and in the prescription of treatment.Method: A descriptive postal questionnaire was self-administered by family doctors.Results: Parents of patients under 18 years are always informed by 18.5% of family doctors, whereas parents of those under 16 years are informed by 38.8% of doctors. The patients are warned of this likelihood by 79.3% of doctors. The proportion of doctors supporting confidentiality for adolescents increases with the age and maturity of the patients, whereas workload and previous training has a negative effect.Conclusions: Spanish laws on adolescent healthcare are not reflected by the paternalistic attitude that Spanish primary care doctors have towards their adolescent patients. Doctors need to be provided with up-to-date and clinically relevant explanations on contemporary legal positions. In primary care, more attention should be paid to adolescents’ rights to information, privacy and confidentiality. Doctors should be more aware of the need to encourage communication between teenagers and their parents, while also safeguarding their patients’ rights to confidential care. (shrink)