集体行为理论视角下暴力伤医现象诱发因素的研究

暴力伤医现象是我国医患矛盾尖锐的具体表现,不仅严重干扰了医院正常诊疗秩序,更对医疗人员的人身安全造成威胁。探讨其诱发因素并进一步提出抑制策略对减少暴力伤医事件、构建和谐的医患关系具有重要的理论意义。文章以集体行为理论框架为视角,阐释暴力伤医事件的诱发因素并提出相应的抑制策略。     

我国暴力伤医事件成因的政策分析及应对

暴力伤医事件是我国医患信任解体的具体表现,并有逐年上升的趋势,它已严重威胁到医疗正常秩序。清晰的阐释其复杂的成因并提出政策应对建议,对减少暴力伤医以及构建和谐医患关系具有重要意义。本文旨在剖析伤医事件的成因的政策根源,并提出相应的政策应对策略及意见,进而为构建和谐的医患关系提供理论参考。     

依法治国视域下防治暴力伤医的法律途径

依法治国的核心是依宪治国,国家尊重和保障人权,暴力伤医是对宪法所保护的公民权利和法益的侵害。暴力伤医直接侵犯的是医务人员生命健康权、人格尊严权和财产安全权,严重破坏了医疗机构正常的医疗秩序,间接侵犯其他病患的就医权。由于相关立法滞后、医疗风险保险机制缺失等因素导致暴力伤医案件逐年增多,给和谐医患关系造成严重破坏。从立法角度提出建议,依法处理暴力伤医,是保障医患双方权益的有效途径。     

当前医患矛盾对医学生德育教育的影响与对策

当前我国医患关系呈现为整体和谐、局部矛盾尖锐的态势,局部矛盾体现在暴力伤医事件频频发生。在缓解局部矛盾的过程中,医学生作为青年学生,面对恶性暴力事件带来的冲击时心理生理都会受到很大影响。同时,医学生作为未来医生又直接关系到未来医患关系的构建,因此,如何在当前特殊形势下避免医患矛盾给医学生带来不良影响,加强医学生德育教育的有效性,成为医学生德育教育的重点和难点。本文通过分析医患矛盾成因,对医学生德育教育的影响以及对策来探讨和研究,希望为构建和谐医患关系和医学生德育教育方面提供新的解决思路。     

医疗风险预警及控制机制探讨

目前我国医疗纠纷及伤医事件频发，医疗风险预警及控制机制的不健全、医患沟通不畅及信任危机是造成这种冲突的主要原因。通过对医疗风险预警及控制机制的研究，为政府和医疗机构在减少医疗风险的发生上提供了干预措施和参考依据。     

论医疗暴力的预防和处理对策

医疗暴力是一种违法行为,已得到了越来越多的人关注。目前医疗暴力事件的频繁发生,不断降低医患相互的信任感,而且引发了恶性的医患暴力冲突事件,影响医疗行业正常发展,成为影响社会稳定的问题之一。本文从整体的角度出发,分析我国目前医疗暴力现状、诱因及对策。深度剖析医患矛盾的缘由,在社会大环境下,就如何缓解医患矛盾的问题也提出了几点建设性的对策。     

严重创伤院前急救体系概况与进展

<正>现代创伤多为高速高能引起的严重多发伤、复合伤,易漏诊误治,致残率及死亡率高,是我国城市和农村人口死亡的五大原因之一[1]。院前急救是创伤救治体系"三环理论"(院前急救医疗环、院内急救环、危重病ICU环)中的一个基本环节,也是非常重要的一环,有效的院前急救可降低死亡率[2]。近年来,随着我国急救医疗体系和灾难医疗救援的逐步建立,院前急救医疗体系(EMSS)初见规模,大部分三级医     

精神科工作场所暴力防范对策探讨

精神科工作场所暴力相较于其他医疗科室工作场所暴力而言,具有发生频率高、危害程度重、防范难度大的特点。在科学界定精神科工作场所暴力内涵的基础上,分析了我国精神科工作场所暴力防范中存在的现实困境,在借鉴美国精神科工作场所暴力防范相关理论的基础上,提出构建完备的防范体系、引入并推广有效评估工具、建立系统化应急措施的防范对策,以期对我国精神科工作场所暴力防范提供有益参考。     

蛇伤性溃疡患者中医特色健康教育对策

目的探讨中医特色健康教育对蛇伤性溃疡患者的护理效果。方法对我院收治的216例蛇伤性溃疡患者采取多种方式进行情志、饮食、用药及功能锻炼宣教。结果 179例患者掌握健康宣教内容,遵医行为较好;27例患者部分掌握健康宣教内容,遵医行为较好;10例患者未能掌握健康宣教内容,遵医行为较差(主要是患者认知程度、饮食习惯及对疼痛的耐受能力差所致)。结论通过中医特色健康教育疏畅患者情志,使患者自觉采用有利于健康的行为,从而提高患者的治愈率和康复率,减少并发症,提高生活质量。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor