Evaluate the awareness regarding the patient’s rights and responsibilities among the patient visiting hospitals

Background

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established by the UN in 1948, and since then, it has been extensively complied with. The protection of patient rights is crucial in the practice of medicine. Patients are among society’s most underprivileged young people. As a result, protecting patients’ rights has been given top priority.¹ Patient’s rights are essential human rights since they are one of society’s most vulnerable groups. Patient rights are key pillars for providing high-quality health care and supporting ethical medical practices.²

As a result, patient rights have been identified as an important problem in attempts to enhance healthcare quality. The right to privacy is one of the essential pillars for defining clinical care standards. Patients who understand their rights not only boost their dignity by allowing them to engage in decision-making with physicians, but they may also improve the quality of healthcare services, save money, and improve the overall health of the population shorten hospital stays. As a result, determining how well patients understand their rights is crucial.²

Patient rights and obligations are the most important NABH certification criterion. While the quality of care is vital, the hospital’s structure must also protect patients and their families’ rights throughout treatment. The organization must establish patient and family rights and duties, train workers to defend these rights, and tell patients about their rights and responsibilities at the time of admission.³

Effective doctor-patient communication is determined by the patient’s comprehension of their sickness and legal rights. Individuals who are more informed about their diseases, drugs, and therapies are more likely to adhere to their treatment plans and take an active role in their care. This needs a shift in attitude toward patient education; instruction should be more patient-centred.⁴

Basic Fundamentals PATIENT’s RIGHTS followed in Tertiary-care hospital:

PATIENT RESPONSIBILITIES:

In 2002, the Indian Medical Council approved Ethical Guidelines in light of India’s condition (COER). The COER addresses both the rights of patients and the duties and responsibilities of doctors. As a result, the current survey was carried out as an effective method to regulate the level of patient satisfaction. rights awareness among inpatients at an academically approved hospital.

Research on patient rights, including how much these rights are exercised and honoured, would emphasize the existing conditions for carers, particularly hospital administrators, to help in policy formation and service management. Patients must be knowledgeable to grasp the essential facts and the decision at hand, and they must not be pushed into taking therapy that they do not choose to receive. To corroborate the three, the investigator strives to analyse the current state of things at the chosen institution. (previously mentioned) necessary needs and to pave the way for statutory compliance and successful patient-carer interaction.^5,6

The concept of patient rights evolved from the recognition of “the inherent dignity” and the “equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family.” [The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights].⁷

Protocol

Research setting: The study will be a cross sectional study. It will include a collection of data through direct questioner to the patients. This study will be conducted in the Tertiary care hospital for Three months.

Research approach: A cross-sectional research will be conducted in the Surgery, Orthopaedic, Medicine and Paediatric departments of the Tertiary care hospital.

Research design: A cross-sectional study with verified questions

Population:

Inclusion: Patients, Patient’s relatives

Exclusion: Doctors, Nurses, Administrators Staff

Sample zize: 349 Patients

Sample size Formula:

Discussion

A cross-sectional study was done, and descriptive analysis was used to examine the obtained outcomes’ measurements. Patient Rights Awareness at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Wardha. The patients were mostly adults, with 53.6% being adults and 34.7% being seniors. Male and female patients were hospitalised in 45.9% and 54.1% of cases, respectively. Patients in cities were more aware than those in rural areas. Because the bulk of the criteria were shown to be statistically significant, education is critical in patient rights.⁸

A cross-sectional study using questionnaires was carried out among hospital patients at a tertiary care facility on Peninsular Malaysia’s east coast. Eighty-five percent of patients had enough knowledge of their condition and the therapeutic options available to them, and 90 percent were aware of their legal rights. Only in 45% of cases, though, were the various treatment choices mentioned, and only in 65% of cases were the patients told how long their therapy would last. The majority of patients in the surgical group, those receiving haemodialysis, and those with minor illnesses were very satisfied with their doctors (92 percent, 86 percent, and 96 percent, respectively), in contrast to only 36 percent of cancer patients and 70 percent of AIDS patients (p-value is less than 0.0001). Almost all patients (99 percent) stated that the personnel respected their religious views and that they had no difficulty reaching them in times of need. In 98 percent of cases, the doctor acquired informed consent, whereas the nurse obtained it in 2%. 98 percent of patients stated that their treatments/examinations were performed in a private setting and that their doctors kept their personal information hidden.⁹

A cross sectional study was conducted in year 2011 at Sari. Association between Awareness of Patient Rights and Patient’s Education, Seeing Bill, and Age: A Cross-Sectional Study. There were 55.4% women and 44.6% males among the patients. The mean age of the patients was 40.93 ±15.04 years, and the average duration of stay was 4.6 ± 3.34 days. The majority of patients (36%) had only a high school diploma or were illiterate (25%). The bill of patients’ rights has not been viewed by the majority (63.4%). Poor knowledge included 58.9%, moderate knowledge comprised 12%, and strong knowledge comprised 29.1%. In terms of the bill’s articles, the 9th (the right to engage or refrain from engaging in research) received the least attention. We discovered a significant association (p<0.0005) between bill awareness and the patient’s education, viewing the bill, and age.¹⁰

The current study employed a cross-sectional descriptive and analytical survey to examine patients’ understanding of their rights based on PRC at two tertiary teaching hospitals associated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) in Iran. Patients’ overall understanding of their rights was modest. Although this percentage was not unsatisfactory when compared to earlier study, efforts should be made to improve it. PRC must be offered to patients by health care groups, who must also ensure that patients understand their rights. Ensuring patients’ rights are respected necessitates not just educate healthcare policymakers and clinicians, but also educating individuals about what they should expect from their governments and health care providers. As a result, the service quality will increase. It is also advised that a Patient Rights Committee be formed to oversee and monitor patient rights education and observance.¹¹

A cross-sectional study was design and conducted between 06.2012 and 09.2012 in tertiary university hospital in Poland: Subjects admitted to a tertiary university hospital in Poland are aware of their rights as patients. Over 80% of respondents were aware of their right to choose a treating physician, refuse proposed treatment, choose the location where the patient is treated, access medical records, free meals, pastoral care, provide information about their health to third parties, and provide information to specific people by phone. The form of granting consent (42.9%) or rejection of consent (50.5%) to treatment and the physicians’ power to deny the presence of a person close to the patient during treatment received the least knowledge (16.4%). Participants’ age and education level had a major influence on the findings.¹²