ObjectiveTo understand the cognition and mediation tendencies of health care workers in terms of third-party mediation for medical disputes, analyze the factors influencing the trust of both doctors and patients on third-party mediation, and propose suggestions on building third-party mediation mechanisms for medical disputes. MethodsBetween August and December 2012, we made the cognition questionnaire on third-party mediation for medical disputes based on the past medical literature, and the knowledge of doctor-patient relationship as well as third-party mediation agency's organizational structure (including locations and management authorities), staffing, mediation basis, validity sources and fund ensuring. We performed the random cluster sampling survey on all health care workers in five hospitals of different levels. The original data were put into the computer for statistical analysis by SPSS 18.0. ResultsThe knowledge of health care workers on third-party mediation was high. They believed that the best place for solving medical disputes should be the court or judicial administrative department, and the management authorities should be health administrative departments. In case of mediation failure, the majority of health care staff chose to continue to solve the dispute through legal channels. For the effectiveness of mediation conclusion, most health care workers tended to believe in the form of arbitration. They thought that mediators should have professional background of medicine and law; the majority of those surveyed doctors tended to accept forensic conclusions as a basis for mediation. For determining the compensation, doctors were in favor of Applicable Regulations for Medical Malpractice. Over 40% of medical staff believed that third-party mediation should be financed by government financial allocation, and more than half of the medical staff believed that it should be paid by the insurance company. ConclusionThird-party mediation should be set in and managed by the court or judicial and administrative departments. Mediator group should be formed by professionals of law and medical sciences. In the mediation process, it is recommended that the focus of controversy should be identified by forensic identification in order to form a clear division of responsibilities and high mediation efficiency. We recommend that the government introduce in financial allocations at all levels on the basis of medical liability insurance system, and force medical institutions to purchase medical liability insurance through the regulations of law, in order to provide funding support for the operation of third-party mediation organizations. Meanwhile, medical liability insurance companies should be operated under strict supervision to avoid their interference on the mediation work.
ObjectiveTo understand patients’ cognition of third-party mediation model for medical disputes, analyze the factors influencing the trust of patients on third-party mediation, and propose recommendations for building third-party mediation mechanisms. MethodsFrom November 2013 to April 2014, we referred past literature to design a relevant questionnaire on the cognition of third-party mediation for medical disputes. Patients who had reached the end of the treatment were surveyed by random cluster sampling. The raw data were put into the computer for statistical analysis by SPSS 18.0. ResultsAfter giving out 500 questionnaires, we acquired 486 effective questionnaires. The result showed that 61.52% of the patients knew of third-party mediation; 55.35% of the patients considered that thirdparty mediation should be set in and supervised by the court or judicial administrative department; if the mediation failed, 57.41% of the patients chose to resolve the dispute through legal channels, and 67.90% of the patients tended to confirm the force of mediation conclusion by arbitration; 70.58% of the patients considered that mediators should have professional background of medicine and law; 73.05% of the patients tended to take conclusions of forensic identification as the basis for mediation; 64.81% of the patients were biased to take Tort Liability Act as the basis for determining the compensation; 53.70% of the patients believed that financial allocations could solve the fund problems of third-party mediation, while 38.48% of the patients thought the funds should be provided by insurance companies; 91.15% of the patients thought the medical institutions should purchase medical liability insurance, and 54.32% of the patients thought insurance companies should not intervene the process of meditation. Conclusions Government should provide financial allocations to ensure the funds of third-party mediation. Besides, medical insurance should be brought in as a supplement. Medical institutions should purchase medical liability insurance to solve problems caused by medical disputes. Third-party mediation should be set in and supervised by the court or the judicial administrative department. Mediators should have professional background of medicine and law. Conclusions of forensic identification should be the basis for third-party mediation.