Search published articles


Showing 2 results for Diagnosis

Ebrahim Nasiri, Hamidreza Kelidari, Sobhan Bahrami,
Volume 9, Issue 3 (10-2016)
Abstract

Protecting patient’s secrets and private information such as disease name and diagnosis can play an important role in establishing trust in the treatment team. The present study aimed to investigate the issues surrounding the confidentiality of patients’ disease names and diagnoses in hospitals affiliated with Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences.

This was a cross-sectional study conducted on 216 patients in internal, surgical and women’s wards who had been hospitalized for at least 24 hours. Research tool was a questionnaire consisting of two parts: demographic data, and questions on the disclosure or confidentiality of information such as disease names. Patients' views were investigated through simple sampling method, and data were analyzed using SPSS software and chi-square test. Of the 216 patients entered in the study, 122 (56.5%) were male and 94 (43.5 %) were female. Participants were aged between 16 and 80, and their mean age was 47 ± 18.6 years.

The results showed that 49 (22.7 %) of the patients did not approve of an open display of their disease names and diagnoses above their beds, while a difference was observed between male and female patients in this regard (P < 0.50)Moreover, there was no relationship between patients’ educational levels and their perspective on other patients’ caregivers finding out about their disease names or diagnoses (P < 0.578).

In this study, a significant percentage of patients were found to be opposed to the disclosure of their diagnoses and disease names. Considering that this phenomenon may prevail among special disease or emergency room patients, it is recommended that authorities take measures against disclosure of patients’ disease names and diagnoses.


Ahmadreza Hemmati Moghadam, Hadi Samadi, Fateme Naeimi,
Volume 12, Issue 0 (3-2019)
Abstract

How can we determine that death has occurred? To answer this question, two points should be noted. First, in order to determine the incidence of death, there should be a standard for determining the occurrence of death; secondly, we need to determine certain clinical tests to determine whether the criterion has been met. In this article, we first introduce different criteria that are presented in different definitions of death, and then offered arguments against each of them. Cardiopulmonary and brain criteria are also introduced and criticized. The basic objection in these definitions is that they see death as an event. At the end, it will be argued that biological death, contrary to conventional wisdom, is a process, not an event. Based on this understanding of death, we provide a definition that addresses the problems of other criteria and shed new light to some issues related to death such as euthanasia and brain death.


Page 1 from 1     

© 2026 , Tehran University of Medical Sciences, CC BY-NC 4.0

Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb