Blanco AM, Blanco FA, García ÁJA

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 307-318
PDF size: 122.98 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: in spite of the elapsed time the biologicist paradigm of medical attention has not been substituted by the biopsychosocial paradigm. Psychosocial stories in the clinical records manufactured on ward in hospitals not yet fulfill the diagnosis of the affectation and suffering of the patient.
Objective: evaluating the contribution of the psychosocial stories to the diagnosis of affectation and suffering of hospitalized patients.
Material and Methods: psychosocial stories, medical comments and diagnostic arguments of 83 clinical records of different wards of hospitalization were analyzed. The boarding of affectation and suffering was examined in the same.
Results: the students of medicine accomplish only half of the psychosocial stories of internal medicine wards and no one in the rest of wards under consideration. The information on affectation and suffering is insufficient in the clinical records of surgical wards.
Conclusions: the confection of psychosocial stories by students of medicine happens in the third and sixth year of the career and in finals examination of the subjects of study Propedeutic, Internal Medicine and Psychiatry. The contribution to the diagnosis of the affectation for the disease and of suffering is very scarce in the text of the few psychosocial stories that the students make up as in the rest of the clinical records.

REFERENCES

1. Swanwick T. Doctors, science and society. Med Educ. 2013;47:3-17.

2. Engel GL. From biomedical to biopsychosocial. Being scientific in the human domain. Psychosomatic. 1997;38(6):521-8.

3. Herrera-Castanedo S, Vázquez-Barquero JL, Gaite Pindado L. La Clasificación Internacional del Funcionamiento, de la Discapacidad y de la Salud (CIF). Rehabilitación. 2008;42(6):269-75.

4. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data; 2001.

5. Fernández-López JA, Fernández-Fidalgo M, Cieza A. La Clasificación Internacional del Funcionamiento (CIF): Un modelo conceptual y metodológico en salud para el siglo XXI. SIIC, Buenos Aires, 2012. [Consultado 13 Jun 2013]. Disponible en: http://www.siicsalud.com/dato/experto.php/124365.

6. Bickenbach JE, Chatterji S, Badley EM, Ustün TB. Models of disablements, disabilities and handicaps. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 48: 1173- 87.

7. Fernández-López JA. Hacia una mejor comprensión de los enfermos. Semergen. 2013;39(8):403 405.

8. Blanco Aspiazú MÁ, Suárez Bergado R, Fernández Camejo J, González Pérez JL, Ramírez Chávez J. Algunas reflexiones sobre el problema diagnóstico en clínica. Educ Med Super [revista en la Internet]. 2009 Dic; 23(4):238-244. [citado 2014 Abr 03]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext& pid=S0864-21412009000400009&lng=es.

9. Núñez de Villavicencio F, Iglesias O. Aspectos psicológicos y sociales de la historia clínica. En: Núñez de Villavicencio F. Psicología y salud. Parte VIII. Ciudad de La Habana: Editorial Ciencias Médicas; 2001, p. 233-6.

10. Blanco Aspiazu MA. Rediseño de un Instrumento de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Entrevista Médica. Trabajo para optar por el título de Máster en Educación Médica. La Habana: 2007.

11. Meuleman JR, Caranasos GJ. Evaluating the interview performance of internal medicine interns. Acad Med. 1989;64:277-9.

12. Duffy DL, Hamerman D, Cohen MA. Communication skills in house officer: a study in medical clinic. Ann Intern Med. 1980;93:354 -7.

13. Woolliscroft JO, Stross JK, Silva J. Clinical competence certification: a critical appraisal. J Med Educ. 1984;59:799-805.

14. Noren J, Frazier T, Altmann I, De Lozier J. Ambulatory medical care: a comparison of internist and family general practitioners. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:11-6.