Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore different health care professionals’ discourse about privacy – its definition and importance in health care, and its role in their day-to-day work. Professionals’ discourse about privacy reveals how new technologies and laws challenge existing practices of information control within and between professional groups in health care, with implications not only for patient privacy, but also for the role of information control in professions more generally.

The authors conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with n=83 doctors, nurses, and health information professionals in two academic medical centers and one veteran’s administration hospital/clinic in the Northeastern USA. Interview responses were qualitatively coded for themes and patterns across groups were identified.

The health care providers and the authors studied actively sought to uphold the protection (and control) of patient information through professional ethics and practices, as well as through the use of technologies and compliance with legal regulations. They used discourses of professionalism, as well as of law and technology, to sometimes accept and sometimes resist changes to practice required in the changing technological and legal context of health care. The authors found differences across professional groups; for some, protection of patient information is part of core professional ethics, while for others it is simply part of their occupational work, aligned with organizational interests.

This qualitative study of physicians, nurses, and health information professionals revealed some differences in views and practices for protecting patient information in the changing technological and legal context of health care that suggest some professional groups (doctors) may be more likely to resist such changes and others (health information professionals) will actively adopt them.

New technologies and regulations are changing how information is used in health care delivery, challenging professional practices for the control of patient information that may change the value or meaning of medical records for different professional groups.

Qualitative findings suggest that professional groups in health care vary in the extent of information control they have, as well in how they view such control. Some groups may be more likely to (be able to) resist changes in the professional control of information that stem from new technologies or regulatory policies. Some professionals recognize that new IT systems and regulations challenge existing social control of information in health care, with the potential to undermine (or possibly bolster) professional self-control for some but not necessarily all occupational groups.

Guided by the growing importance of social-mediated organisational communication, this study examines how communication professionals within healthcare organisations perceive and respond to the reputation impacts of social media on the organisation’s reputation. Although the healthcare sector finds itself in the midst of a (continually) transforming landscape characterised by large amounts of digital health (mis)information and an empowered “patient-as-consumer”, little is known about how professionals in this sector understand the changes and respond to them. Moreover, much extant scholarship on the topic is published in specialised health or medical journals and does not explicitly address the communication implications for healthcare organisations.

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with communication professionals responsible for social media across eight hospitals in the Netherlands. The sample included two participants working as communication consultants/social media advisors for healthcare organisations. In all, 15 interviews were conducted.

Building on interviewee perspectives, the authors advance the CARE (Control, Access(ability), Responsive(ness) and Engagement) model of social-mediated communication, highlighting the dualistic characteristics of each dimension. This model is built upon a careful analysis of healthcare professional responses. In an always-on environment, understanding and managing the tensions within the authors’ model may be decisive to the reputation implications of social media use.

Understanding the tensions within each dimension lends a more nuanced perspective on the potential impact(s) of social media as experienced by professionals in the field. In shifting away from a binary, either/or approach, the paper contributes to explicating the complexities of a pervasive phenomenon (i.e. social-mediated communication) and its multifaceted impacts on the healthcare sector.

A policy of surveillance which interferes with the fundamental right to a private life requires credible justification and a supportive evidence base. The authority for such interference should be clearly detailed in law, overseen by a transparent process and not left to the vagaries of administrative discretion. If a state surveils those it governs and claims the interference to be in the public interest, then the evidence base on which that claim stands and the operative conception of public interest should be subject to critical examination. Unfortunately, there is an inconsistency in the regulatory burden associated with access to confidential patient information for non-health-related surveillance purposes and access for health-related surveillance or research purposes. This inconsistency represents a systemic weakness to inform or challenge an evidence-based policy of non-health-related surveillance. This inconsistency is unjustified and undermines the qualities recognised to be necessary to maintain a trustworthy confidential public health service. Taking the withdrawn Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between NHS Digital and the Home Office as a worked example, this chapter demonstrates how the capacity of the law to constrain the arbitrary or unwarranted exercise of power through judicial review is not sufficient to level the playing field. The authors recommend ‘levelling up’ in procedural oversight, and adopting independent mechanisms equivalent to those adopted for establishing the operative conceptions of public interest in the context of health research to non-health-related surveillance purposes.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an important health problem throughout the world. Association between DM and oral diseases has been reported and dental clinic is indicated to be one of the suitable venues for the screening of DM. The purpose of this paper is to determine patients’ attitude toward DM screening in dental clinics.

The anonymous, self-administered questionnaires of five-point response scale questions were distributed to convenience samples of adult patients (⩾25 years) attending one of the dental settings. These dental settings were divided into the university/hospital-based dental clinics (encompassing two university-based and five hospital-based dental clinics) or the private dental clinics (encompassing two private, and one special (after office hour) clinic of a faculty of dentistry). The questions could be categorized into three groups regarding importance, willingness, and agreement of DM screening in dental settings. Results are presented as percentage by respondents based upon the number of responses for each question. The favorable outcomes which were defined as responses of either scale of 4 or 5 were also summarized according to dental settings. The χ² test for comparison was used to compare the favorable outcomes between the two settings.

A total of 601 completed questionnaires were collected; 394 from university/hospital-based dental clinics and 207 from two private clinics and a special (after office hour) clinic of a faculty of dentistry. Overall, the majority of respondents in both university/hospital-based and private practice settings felt that it is important to have a dentist conduct a screening (84.8 vs 79.5 percent). The majority of patients in both groups were willing to receive blood pressure examination (95.0 vs 92.0 percent), weight and height measurements (94.7 vs 94.0 percent), saliva/oral fluid investigation (86.4 and 86.9 percent) and finger-stick blood test (83.8 vs 83.9 percent). More than 75 percent of all respondents agreed with diabetes screening in dental clinics.

The majority of respondents supported the screening of DM in dental settings and they were willing to have a screening test by the dentist. Patient acceptance is an important key to be successful in the screening of DM in dental settings.

Cybersecurity in healthcare has become an urgent matter in recent years due to various malicious attacks on hospitals and other parts of the healthcare infrastructure. The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline of how core values of the health systems, such as the principles of biomedical ethics, are in a supportive or conflicting relation to cybersecurity.

This paper claims that it is possible to map the desiderata relevant to cybersecurity onto the four principles of medical ethics, i.e. beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice, and explore value conflicts in that way.

With respect to the question of how these principles should be balanced, there are reasons to think that the priority of autonomy relative to beneficence and non-maleficence in contemporary medical ethics could be extended to value conflicts in health-related cybersecurity.

However, the tension between autonomy and justice, which relates to the desideratum of usability of information and communication technology systems, cannot be ignored even if one assumes that respect for autonomy should take priority over other moral concerns.

In terms of value conflicts, most discussions in healthcare deal with the conflict of balancing efficiency and privacy given the sensible nature of health information. In this paper, the authors provide a broader and more detailed outline.

The quality of asthma care may be affected if asthma management is overlooked, thus needing frequent clinical audits to identify areas for improvement. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the quality of the process (e.g. documentation of asthma-specific information), the structure (e.g. availability of resources) and the outcome (e.g. proportion of patients prescribed with asthma medications) at a university-based primary care clinic. The associated clinical factors for non-documentation of asthma control at the last visit were also examined.

This retrospective study involved auditing medical records and the pharmacy data system of 433 adult patients with asthma to evaluate 18 quality indicators. The standard target for the indicators of process and structure was 80 percent and the standard target for the indicators of outcome was 100 percent.

All the indicators failed to reach the standard targets. Documentation of asthma-specific information and availability of resources were deficient. The non-documentation of asthma control was significantly associated with presence of acute complaint(s) unrelated to asthma, presence of other issues and number of the documented parameters for asthma control. Although the prescription rates of inhaled reliever and preventer were substandard, they were reasonably high compared to the targets.

In this study, evaluation of the quality of care was limited by absence of asthma register, use of paper-based medical records and restricted practice capacity. Besides, the asthma-specific assessments and management were only audited at one particular time. Furthermore, the findings of this study could not be generalised to other settings that used other methods of record keeping such as patient-held cards and electronic medical records. Future studies should sample asthma patients from a register, evaluate more reliable quality indicators (e.g. over-prescription of short-acting β-2 agonist and underuse of inhaled corticosteroid) and assess asthma management over a duration of time.

This study provides quality information on all aspects of asthma care (process, structure and outcome) which can be a basis for clinical improvement. It is hoped that the study could assist the stakeholders to plan strategies for improvement of the asthma care. A more strategic and reliable system of documentation is needed, such as the use of a simple template or structured form, which should not jeopardise the provision of personalised and comprehensive care. With complete documentation, thorough investigational audits can be continuously performed to determine the quality of asthma care.

This study could provide useful findings to guide healthcare providers in developing a more strategic model of asthma care that can ensure asthma patients to receive a personalised, comprehensive, holistic and continuous care. Through this approach, their physical and psychosocial well-being can be optimised.

Even though our healthcare has advanced, the quality of asthma care is still suboptimal which requires further improvement. However, it could be considered assuring due to high outcome levels of asthma care despite having limited resources and practice capacity.

Healthcare policies around the globe are aimed at achieving patient-centeredness. The patient is understood as a prosumer of healthcare, wherein healthcare service co-production and value co-creation take center stage. The article endeavors to unpack the state of the literature on the innovations promoting the transition toward patient-centeredness, informing policy and management interventions fostering the reconceptualization of the patient as a prosumer of healthcare services.

A hybrid review methodology consisting of a bibliometric-interpretive review following the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol is used. The bibliometric component enabled us to objectively map the extant scientific knowledge into research streams, whereas the interpretive component facilitated the critical analysis of research streams.

Patient-centeredness relies on a bundle of innovations that are enacted through a cycle of patients' activation, empowerment, involvement and engagement, wherein the omission of any steps arrests the transition toward service co-production and value co-creation. Institutional, organizational and cognitive barriers should be overcome to boost the transition of patients from consumers to prosumers in a patient-centered model of healthcare.

The article delivers the state of the art of the scientific literature in the field of innovations aimed at sustaining the transition toward patient-centeredness and provides some food for thoughts to scholars and practitioners who wish to push forward service co-production and value co-creation in healthcare.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) is home to 21% of the world’s population of people who inject drugs and it is the region with the fastest-growing HIV epidemic. HIV prevalence among women who inject drugs is significantly higher than among men in EECA. Even in places with high coverage of needle syringe programmes and HIV testing and treatment, women’s access to opioid substitution treatment is lower than men, and women’s sexual and reproductive health needs remain unaddressed. EECA has a unique system of drug registries that store the personal data of people who use drugs. Registration lowers the chances of employment and access to education and for women and increases the risk of losing custody of their children. The system of drug registries contributes to drug-related stigma. Breaches of confidentiality of drug registry data lead to the further marginalisation of women who use drugs. Criminalisation, past experience of police violence and poverty contribute to healthcare access barriers for women. There is a need for legislative changes to improve personal data protection, decriminalise drug use and reduce police violence. The positive effects of these changes would only be seen in the long term. In the interim, women need special access programmes that are designed specifically to address their needs, that provide free-of-charge services and that ensure the safety and confidentiality of personal data.

There is considerable heterogeneity between primary care systems that have evolved in individual national cultural environments. Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) studied how the transfer of models or their individual components can be achieved across nations, using examples of combinations of settings, functions, target groups and tracer conditions. There are many factors that determine the feasibility of successful transfer of these from one setting to another, which must be recognised and taken into account. These include the environment of the care system, national policy-making and contextual means of directing population behaviour – in the form of penalties and incentives, which cannot be assessed or expected to work by means of rational actions alone. MOCHA developed a list of criteria to assess transferability, summarised in a population characteristics, intervention content, environment and transfer (PIET-T) process. To explore the process and means of transferability, we obtained consensus statements from the researchers on optimum model scenarios and conducted a survey of stakeholders, professionals and users of children’s primary care services that involved three specific health topics: vaccination coverage in infants, monitoring of a chronic or complex condition and early recognition of mental health problems. The results give insight into features of transferability – such as the availability and the use of guidelines and formal procedures; the barriers and facilitators of implementation and similarities and differences between model practices and the existing model of child primary care in the country. We found that successful transfer of an optimal model is impossible without tailoring the model to a specific country setting. It is vital to be aware of the sensitivity of the population and environmental characteristics of a country before starting to change the system of primary care.

In 2017, the opioid epidemic was declared a public health emergency in the United States. The federal and state governments are still struggling to contain the crisis through various legislations and to stem the tide of overdoses and deaths. This paper looks specifically at the issue of high prescriptions of opioids disbursed to patients by physicians.

This paper evaluates this evolving policy issue through a critical review and synthesis of academic literature, government policy documents (at states and national levels) and articles in the popular press.

Over-prescription is a legal problem because it inevitably leads to diversion of these substances for non-medical usage. The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) laws have been passed by all 50 states and the main policy responses are covered. However, there are hindrances to their effectiveness, which have to be addressed. Two state level policy alternatives are discussed as potential solutions — PDMP mandates and Pain Management Clinic Laws (PMCLs). After a comparative evaluation, it is recommended that all states should pass the mandatory PDMP review and usage laws urgently.

This is the first detailed policy evaluation on the specific and time-sensitive aspect of physician over-prescribing, within the larger opioid abuse problem. Moreover, critique on the public health leadership issue is raised.