Thomas Lee
The San Francisco Chronicle
Originally posted September 2, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
An ethical code will force companies to rethink how they approach research and development. Instead of making stuff first and then worrying about data security later, companies will start from the premise that they need to protect consumer privacy before they start designing new products and services, Harkins said.
There is precedent for this. Many professional organizations like the American Medical Association and American Bar Association require members to follow a code of ethics. For example, doctors must pledge above all else not to harm a patient.
A code of ethics for cybersecurity will no doubt slow the pace of innovation, said Maurice Schweitzer, a professor of operations, information and decisions at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.
Ultimately, though, following such a code could boost companies’ reputations, Schweitzer said. Given the increasing number and severity of hacks, consumers will pay a premium for companies dedicated to security and privacy from the get-go, he said.
In any case, what’s wrong with taking a pause so we can catch our breath? The ethical quandaries technology poses to mankind are only going to get more complex as we increasingly outsource our lives to thinking machines.
That’s why a code of ethics is so important. Technology may come and go, but right and wrong never changes.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Guidelines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guidelines. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Sunday, August 27, 2017
Will Trump Be the Death of the Goldwater Rule?
Jeannie Suk Gersen
The New Yorker
Originally posted August 23, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the President’s mental health. The principle known as the “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination, as Jane Mayer wrote in this magazine in May. After losing the 1964 Presidential election, Senator Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact magazine for defamation after it published a special issue in which psychiatrists declared him “severely paranoid” and “unfit” for the Presidency. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit, he must demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”; a key piece of evidence in the Goldwater case was Fact’s disregard of a letter from the American Psychiatric Association warning that any survey of psychiatrists who hadn’t clinically examined Goldwater was invalid.
The Supreme Court denied Fact’s cert petition, which hoped to vindicate First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press. But Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, writing, “The public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny. Extravagant, reckless statements and even claims which may not be true seem to me an inevitable and perhaps essential part of the process by which the voting public informs itself of the qualities of a man who would be President.”
These statements, of course, resonate today. President Trump has unsuccessfully pursued many defamation lawsuits over the years, leading him to vow during the 2016 campaign to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” (One of his most recent suits, dismissed in 2016, concerned a Univision executive’s social-media posting of side-by-side photos of Trump and Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; Trump alleged that the posting falsely accused him of inciting similar acts.)
The article is here.
The New Yorker
Originally posted August 23, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the President’s mental health. The principle known as the “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination, as Jane Mayer wrote in this magazine in May. After losing the 1964 Presidential election, Senator Barry Goldwater successfully sued Fact magazine for defamation after it published a special issue in which psychiatrists declared him “severely paranoid” and “unfit” for the Presidency. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit, he must demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”; a key piece of evidence in the Goldwater case was Fact’s disregard of a letter from the American Psychiatric Association warning that any survey of psychiatrists who hadn’t clinically examined Goldwater was invalid.
The Supreme Court denied Fact’s cert petition, which hoped to vindicate First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press. But Justice Hugo Black, joined by William O. Douglas, dissented, writing, “The public has an unqualified right to have the character and fitness of anyone who aspires to the Presidency held up for the closest scrutiny. Extravagant, reckless statements and even claims which may not be true seem to me an inevitable and perhaps essential part of the process by which the voting public informs itself of the qualities of a man who would be President.”
These statements, of course, resonate today. President Trump has unsuccessfully pursued many defamation lawsuits over the years, leading him to vow during the 2016 campaign to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” (One of his most recent suits, dismissed in 2016, concerned a Univision executive’s social-media posting of side-by-side photos of Trump and Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who murdered nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015; Trump alleged that the posting falsely accused him of inciting similar acts.)
The article is here.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
New Technology Standards Guide Social Work Practice and Education
Susan A. Knight
Social Work Today
Vol. 17 No. 4 P. 10
Today's technological landscape is vastly different from what it was just 10 to 15 years ago. Smartphones have replaced home landlines. Texting has become an accepted form of communication, both personally and professionally. Across sectors—health and human services, education, government, and business—employees conduct all manner of work on tablets and other portable devices. Along with "liking" posts on Facebook, people are tracking hashtags on Twitter, sending messages via Snapchat, and pinning pictures to Pinterest.
To top it all off, it seems that there's always a fresh controversy emerging because someone shared something questionable on a social media platform for the general public to see and critique.
Like every other field, social work practice is dealing with issues, challenges, and risks that were previously nonexistent. The NASW and Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice, dating back to 2005, was in desperate need of a rework in order to address all the changes and complexities within the technological environment that social workers are forced to contend with.
The newly released updated standards are the result of a collaborative effort between four major social work organizations: NASW, ASWB, the Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA), and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). "The intercollaboration in the development of the technology standards provides one consensus product and resource for social workers to refer to," says Mirean Coleman, MSW, LICSW, CT, clinical manager of NASW.
The article is here.
Social Work Today
Vol. 17 No. 4 P. 10
Today's technological landscape is vastly different from what it was just 10 to 15 years ago. Smartphones have replaced home landlines. Texting has become an accepted form of communication, both personally and professionally. Across sectors—health and human services, education, government, and business—employees conduct all manner of work on tablets and other portable devices. Along with "liking" posts on Facebook, people are tracking hashtags on Twitter, sending messages via Snapchat, and pinning pictures to Pinterest.
To top it all off, it seems that there's always a fresh controversy emerging because someone shared something questionable on a social media platform for the general public to see and critique.
Like every other field, social work practice is dealing with issues, challenges, and risks that were previously nonexistent. The NASW and Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Standards for Technology and Social Work Practice, dating back to 2005, was in desperate need of a rework in order to address all the changes and complexities within the technological environment that social workers are forced to contend with.
The newly released updated standards are the result of a collaborative effort between four major social work organizations: NASW, ASWB, the Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA), and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). "The intercollaboration in the development of the technology standards provides one consensus product and resource for social workers to refer to," says Mirean Coleman, MSW, LICSW, CT, clinical manager of NASW.
The article is here.
Monday, July 10, 2017
When Are Doctors Too Old to Practice?
By Lucette Lagnado
The Wall Street Journal
Originally posted June 24, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Testing older physicians for mental and physical ability is growing more common. Nearly a fourth of physicians in America are 65 or older, and 40% of these are actively involved in patient care, according to the American Medical Association. Experts at the AMA have suggested that they be screened lest they pose a risk to patients. An AMA working group is considering guidelines.
Concern over older physicians' mental states--and whether it is safe for them to care for patients--has prompted a number of institutions, from Stanford Health Care in Palo Alto, Calif., to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, to the University of Virginia Health System, to adopt age-related physician policies in recent years. The goal is to spot problems, in particular signs of cognitive decline or dementia.
Now, as more institutions like Cooper embrace the measures, they are roiling some older doctors and raising questions of fairness, scientific validity--and ageism.
"It is not for the faint of heart, this policy," said Ann Weinacker, 66, the former chief of staff at the hospital and professor of medicine at Stanford University who has overseen the controversial efforts to implement age-related screening at Stanford hospital.
A group of doctors has been battling Stanford's age-based physician policies for the past five years, contending they are demeaning and discriminatory. The older doctors got the medical staff to scrap a mental-competency exam aimed at testing for cognitive impairment. Most, like Frank Stockdale, an 81-year-old breast-cancer specialist, refused to take it.
The article is here.
The Wall Street Journal
Originally posted June 24, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Testing older physicians for mental and physical ability is growing more common. Nearly a fourth of physicians in America are 65 or older, and 40% of these are actively involved in patient care, according to the American Medical Association. Experts at the AMA have suggested that they be screened lest they pose a risk to patients. An AMA working group is considering guidelines.
Concern over older physicians' mental states--and whether it is safe for them to care for patients--has prompted a number of institutions, from Stanford Health Care in Palo Alto, Calif., to Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas, to the University of Virginia Health System, to adopt age-related physician policies in recent years. The goal is to spot problems, in particular signs of cognitive decline or dementia.
Now, as more institutions like Cooper embrace the measures, they are roiling some older doctors and raising questions of fairness, scientific validity--and ageism.
"It is not for the faint of heart, this policy," said Ann Weinacker, 66, the former chief of staff at the hospital and professor of medicine at Stanford University who has overseen the controversial efforts to implement age-related screening at Stanford hospital.
A group of doctors has been battling Stanford's age-based physician policies for the past five years, contending they are demeaning and discriminatory. The older doctors got the medical staff to scrap a mental-competency exam aimed at testing for cognitive impairment. Most, like Frank Stockdale, an 81-year-old breast-cancer specialist, refused to take it.
The article is here.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals
Anna Wexler
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102704
Abstract
Scientists and neuroethicists have recently drawn attention to the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding the do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation community, which comprises individuals stimulating their own brains with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for self-improvement. However, to date, existing regulatory proposals and ethical discussions have been put forth without engaging those involved in the DIY tDCS community or attempting to understand the nature of their practices. I argue that to better contend with the growing ethical and safety concerns surrounding DIY tDCS, we need to understand the practices of the community. This study presents the results of a preliminary inquiry into the DIY tDCS community, with a focus on knowledge that is formed, shared and appropriated within it. I show that when making or acquiring a device, DIYers (as some members call themselves) produce a body of knowledge that is completely separate from that of the scientific community, and share it via online forums, blogs, videos and personal communications. However, when applying tDCS, DIYers draw heavily on existing scientific knowledge, posting links to academic journal articles and scientific resources and adopting the standardised electrode placement system used by scientists. Some DIYers co-opt scientific knowledge and modify it by creating their own manuals and guides based on published papers. Finally, I explore how DIYers cope with the methodological limitations inherent in self-experimentation. I conclude by discussing how a deeper understanding of the practices of DIY tDCS has important regulatory and ethical implications.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102704
Abstract
Scientists and neuroethicists have recently drawn attention to the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding the do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation community, which comprises individuals stimulating their own brains with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for self-improvement. However, to date, existing regulatory proposals and ethical discussions have been put forth without engaging those involved in the DIY tDCS community or attempting to understand the nature of their practices. I argue that to better contend with the growing ethical and safety concerns surrounding DIY tDCS, we need to understand the practices of the community. This study presents the results of a preliminary inquiry into the DIY tDCS community, with a focus on knowledge that is formed, shared and appropriated within it. I show that when making or acquiring a device, DIYers (as some members call themselves) produce a body of knowledge that is completely separate from that of the scientific community, and share it via online forums, blogs, videos and personal communications. However, when applying tDCS, DIYers draw heavily on existing scientific knowledge, posting links to academic journal articles and scientific resources and adopting the standardised electrode placement system used by scientists. Some DIYers co-opt scientific knowledge and modify it by creating their own manuals and guides based on published papers. Finally, I explore how DIYers cope with the methodological limitations inherent in self-experimentation. I conclude by discussing how a deeper understanding of the practices of DIY tDCS has important regulatory and ethical implications.
The article is here.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Navigating the Google Blind Spot
An Emerging Need for Professional Guidelines to Address Patient-Targeted Googling
By Maria J. Baker, Daniel R. George and Gordon L. Kauffman
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Originally published September 17, 2014
Many physicians would agree that seeking information about their patients via Google seems to be an invasion of privacy, violating trust between patients and their healthcare providers. However, it may be viewed as ethically valid, and even warranted under certain circumstances. Although guidelines developed by the American Medical Association and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) provide general guidance on the appropriate use of the Internet, they do not specifically address the crucial issue of whether physicians should ‘google’ their patients, and, if so, under what circumstances. As a result, physicians are left to navigate this “google blind spot” independently, and to decipher on a case-by-case basis where the boundary of professionalism lies with regard to patient-targeted googling.
Two case scenarios illustrate the moral ambiguity present within this “blind spot.”
The entire article is here.
By Maria J. Baker, Daniel R. George and Gordon L. Kauffman
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Originally published September 17, 2014
Many physicians would agree that seeking information about their patients via Google seems to be an invasion of privacy, violating trust between patients and their healthcare providers. However, it may be viewed as ethically valid, and even warranted under certain circumstances. Although guidelines developed by the American Medical Association and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) provide general guidance on the appropriate use of the Internet, they do not specifically address the crucial issue of whether physicians should ‘google’ their patients, and, if so, under what circumstances. As a result, physicians are left to navigate this “google blind spot” independently, and to decipher on a case-by-case basis where the boundary of professionalism lies with regard to patient-targeted googling.
Two case scenarios illustrate the moral ambiguity present within this “blind spot.”
The entire article is here.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary
By Sietse Wieringa and Trisha Greenhalgh
Implementation Science 2015, 10:45
doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x
Published: 9 April 2015
Abstract
Background
In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines—internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines—rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since.
Methods
We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term ‘mindline(s)’ and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May’s 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review.
Results
In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name (‘nominal’ view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term’s philosophical foundations. The latter took an ‘in-practice’ view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a ‘theoretical and philosophical’ view (extending theory) or a ‘solution focused’ view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities.
Theoretical publications on mindlines have continued to challenge the rationalist assumptions of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Conventional EBM assumes a single, knowable reality and seeks to strip away context to generate universal predictive rules. In contrast, mindlines are predicated on a more fluid, embodied and intersubjective view of knowledge; they accommodate context and acknowledge multiple realities. When considering how knowledge spreads, the concept of mindlines requires us to go beyond the constraining notions of ‘dissemination’ and ‘translation’ to study tacit knowledge and the interactive human processes by which such knowledge is created, enacted and shared. Solution-focused publications described mindline-promoting initiatives such as relationship-building, collaborative learning and thought leadership.
Conclusions
The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM’s conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of ‘evidence-based’ knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal.
The entire article is here.
Implementation Science 2015, 10:45
doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x
Published: 9 April 2015
Abstract
Background
In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines—internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines—rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since.
Methods
We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term ‘mindline(s)’ and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May’s 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review.
Results
In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name (‘nominal’ view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term’s philosophical foundations. The latter took an ‘in-practice’ view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a ‘theoretical and philosophical’ view (extending theory) or a ‘solution focused’ view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities.
Theoretical publications on mindlines have continued to challenge the rationalist assumptions of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Conventional EBM assumes a single, knowable reality and seeks to strip away context to generate universal predictive rules. In contrast, mindlines are predicated on a more fluid, embodied and intersubjective view of knowledge; they accommodate context and acknowledge multiple realities. When considering how knowledge spreads, the concept of mindlines requires us to go beyond the constraining notions of ‘dissemination’ and ‘translation’ to study tacit knowledge and the interactive human processes by which such knowledge is created, enacted and shared. Solution-focused publications described mindline-promoting initiatives such as relationship-building, collaborative learning and thought leadership.
Conclusions
The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM’s conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of ‘evidence-based’ knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal.
The entire article is here.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Telepsychology, Telehealth, & Internet-Based Therapy
From Ken Pope's site
I gathered the following resources to help therapists, counselors, and other clinicians to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving professional guidelines, research, treatments, innovations, and practices in the areas of telepsychology, telehealth, internet-based therapy.
I've divided the resources into 3 sections:
1) Links to 24 sets of professional guidelines that focus on telepsychology, online counseling, internet-based therapy, etc.
2) Citations for 51 recent (i.e., published in 2013-2015) articles
3) State Psychology Board Telepsychology Laws, Regulations, Policies, & Opinions--This third section was generously compiled by psychologist Kenneth R. Drude, and I am indebted to him for his kind offer to post it here.
The resource page is here.
I will link it in the Guides and Guidelines section of this site.
I gathered the following resources to help therapists, counselors, and other clinicians to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving professional guidelines, research, treatments, innovations, and practices in the areas of telepsychology, telehealth, internet-based therapy.
I've divided the resources into 3 sections:
1) Links to 24 sets of professional guidelines that focus on telepsychology, online counseling, internet-based therapy, etc.
2) Citations for 51 recent (i.e., published in 2013-2015) articles
3) State Psychology Board Telepsychology Laws, Regulations, Policies, & Opinions--This third section was generously compiled by psychologist Kenneth R. Drude, and I am indebted to him for his kind offer to post it here.
The resource page is here.
I will link it in the Guides and Guidelines section of this site.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Guidelines for Best Practices in Electronic Communications
Ontario Psychological Association
February 2015
Preamble
Preamble Technology has been changing communication between psychological service providers and patients, referral sources, other healthcare providers and third-party payers. Members may be aware of websites, applications, and email communication tools that can be used to improve the delivery of patient care. Many of us use email extensively because it is fast, reliable, and convenient. These same characteristics, however, bring legal and liability risks, including a higher potential for privacy breaches.
As regulated health professionals, we have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of our patients' personal health information (PHI) and to comply with privacy regulations (see Appendix A). Members need to consider how to communicate with and about patients while still protecting patient privacy. While email is fast and convenient, it also is often the least secure and the least private way to communicate.
We are aware that many larger healthcare and academic settings now have policies stating that email should not be used to transmit any PHI. We are also aware that general guidelines for use of email suggest that it is not a secure form of communication for any personal information. Most guidelines for general email use suggest that information that is sensitive, confidential, potentially embarrassing, proprietary, personal, or classified should never be sent through email.
While members practicing within healthcare and academic settings may be familiar with their institution’s policies, those in community-based practice may not be as familiar with regulations and expectations regarding electronic communication. To clarify the responsibilities of members, the Ontario Psychological Association’s Communication and Member Services Committee is providing the following Guidelines for Best Practices in Electronic Communications.
The entire helpful guide is here.
February 2015
Preamble
Preamble Technology has been changing communication between psychological service providers and patients, referral sources, other healthcare providers and third-party payers. Members may be aware of websites, applications, and email communication tools that can be used to improve the delivery of patient care. Many of us use email extensively because it is fast, reliable, and convenient. These same characteristics, however, bring legal and liability risks, including a higher potential for privacy breaches.
As regulated health professionals, we have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of our patients' personal health information (PHI) and to comply with privacy regulations (see Appendix A). Members need to consider how to communicate with and about patients while still protecting patient privacy. While email is fast and convenient, it also is often the least secure and the least private way to communicate.
We are aware that many larger healthcare and academic settings now have policies stating that email should not be used to transmit any PHI. We are also aware that general guidelines for use of email suggest that it is not a secure form of communication for any personal information. Most guidelines for general email use suggest that information that is sensitive, confidential, potentially embarrassing, proprietary, personal, or classified should never be sent through email.
While members practicing within healthcare and academic settings may be familiar with their institution’s policies, those in community-based practice may not be as familiar with regulations and expectations regarding electronic communication. To clarify the responsibilities of members, the Ontario Psychological Association’s Communication and Member Services Committee is providing the following Guidelines for Best Practices in Electronic Communications.
The entire helpful guide is here.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations
The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations was developed as part of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, 5-8 May 2013, in Montréal, as a global guide to the responsible conduct of research. It is not a regulatory document and does not represent the official policies of the countries or organizations that funded or participated in the Conference.
Preamble.
Research collaborations that cross national, institutional, disciplinary and sector boundaries are important to the advancement of knowledge worldwide. Such collaborations present special challenges for the responsible conduct of research, because they may involve substantial differences in regulatory and legal systems, organizational and funding structures, research cultures, and approaches to training. It is critically important, therefore, that researchers be aware of and able to address such differences, as well as issues related to integrity that might arise in cross-boundary research collaborations. Researchers should adhere to the professional responsibilities set forth in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. In addition, the following responsibilities are particularly relevant to collaborating partners at the individual and institutional levels and fundamental to the integrity of collaborative research. Fostering the integrity of collaborative research is the responsibility of all individual and institutional partners.
The entire statement is here.
Preamble.
Research collaborations that cross national, institutional, disciplinary and sector boundaries are important to the advancement of knowledge worldwide. Such collaborations present special challenges for the responsible conduct of research, because they may involve substantial differences in regulatory and legal systems, organizational and funding structures, research cultures, and approaches to training. It is critically important, therefore, that researchers be aware of and able to address such differences, as well as issues related to integrity that might arise in cross-boundary research collaborations. Researchers should adhere to the professional responsibilities set forth in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. In addition, the following responsibilities are particularly relevant to collaborating partners at the individual and institutional levels and fundamental to the integrity of collaborative research. Fostering the integrity of collaborative research is the responsibility of all individual and institutional partners.
The entire statement is here.
Monday, October 7, 2013
APA releases guidelines on cutting antipsychotic overuse
By Brie Zeltner
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
Originally published on September 20, 2013
Doctors and patients should question of the use of antipsychotic medications in patients, particularly among the elderly with dementia and children and adolescents without psychotic disorders.
That’s according to a list of five common uses of the medications that are potentially unnecessary and could cause harm released today by the American Psychiatric Association as part of a national effort called the Choosing Wisely campaign.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
Originally published on September 20, 2013
Doctors and patients should question of the use of antipsychotic medications in patients, particularly among the elderly with dementia and children and adolescents without psychotic disorders.
That’s according to a list of five common uses of the medications that are potentially unnecessary and could cause harm released today by the American Psychiatric Association as part of a national effort called the Choosing Wisely campaign.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Concussion Study Makes Case for Reducing Contact Drills for Youth Players
By KEN BELSON
The New York Times
Published: July 25, 2013
Youth football players are not more vulnerable to head hits in games if they take part in fewer contact drills during practices, a new study published in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering showed.
(cut)
The study’s conclusion — that the amount of practice does not influence the number of head hits absorbed during games — may bolster calls to reduce the frequency of contact drills in youth football leagues. N.F.L., college and high school teams have already scaled back the number of contact drills in practices.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: July 25, 2013
Youth football players are not more vulnerable to head hits in games if they take part in fewer contact drills during practices, a new study published in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering showed.
(cut)
The study’s conclusion — that the amount of practice does not influence the number of head hits absorbed during games — may bolster calls to reduce the frequency of contact drills in youth football leagues. N.F.L., college and high school teams have already scaled back the number of contact drills in practices.
The entire story is here.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Genetic Testing Recommendations Contradict Professional Ethics, Experts Say
By Rebecca Voelker
News@JAMA
Originally posted May 9, 2013
Recent recommendations that advise laboratories and physicians how to tell patients about incidental findings in genetic tests contradict ethical clinical practice, according to bioethicists at Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics in California.
A working group convened by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) released recommendations in March saying that clinical DNA sequencing laboratories should test for a list of specific genetic abnormalities regardless of the clinical reason for testing and report the results to the patient’s physician. In turn, the recommendations say physicians have a responsibility to give patients all the findings, even if patients don’t want results that aren’t relevant to the condition for which they were tested.
The ACMG recommends that patients who undergo genome sequencing be tested for conditions including various forms of cancer, cardiomyopathy, and familial hypercholesterolemia in addition to their primary medical condition.
Recommending that patients not be able to choose whether they want to receive incidental findings, even when test results suggest adult-onset conditions in children, “contradicts ethical clinical practice in general,” wrote bioethicists Megan Allyse, PhD, and Marsha Michie, PhD, in the journal Trends in Biotechnology.
The entire article is here.
The ACMG recommendations are here.
News@JAMA
Originally posted May 9, 2013
Recent recommendations that advise laboratories and physicians how to tell patients about incidental findings in genetic tests contradict ethical clinical practice, according to bioethicists at Stanford University’s Center for Biomedical Ethics in California.
A working group convened by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) released recommendations in March saying that clinical DNA sequencing laboratories should test for a list of specific genetic abnormalities regardless of the clinical reason for testing and report the results to the patient’s physician. In turn, the recommendations say physicians have a responsibility to give patients all the findings, even if patients don’t want results that aren’t relevant to the condition for which they were tested.
The ACMG recommends that patients who undergo genome sequencing be tested for conditions including various forms of cancer, cardiomyopathy, and familial hypercholesterolemia in addition to their primary medical condition.
Recommending that patients not be able to choose whether they want to receive incidental findings, even when test results suggest adult-onset conditions in children, “contradicts ethical clinical practice in general,” wrote bioethicists Megan Allyse, PhD, and Marsha Michie, PhD, in the journal Trends in Biotechnology.
The entire article is here.
The ACMG recommendations are here.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
New Guidelines Raise Safety Bar on Concussions
By Alan Mozes
Medicinenet.com
Originally published March 18, 2013
Any athlete who suffers a suspected concussion should be withdrawn from play and stay on the sidelines until a qualified health care professional determines that all symptoms have subsided and it is safe to return to the field, new guidelines state.
Issued by the American Academy of Neurology, the latest recommendations aim to keep young athletes as safe as possible.
"With the older guidelines, we were trying to rate concussions at the time of the injury and predict recovery times, but now we know, 'When in doubt, sit 'em out,'" said guideline co-author Dr. Christopher Giza, an associate professor of pediatric neurology and neurosurgery with the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Mattel Children's Hospital.
"The point is that no single quick test is really a litmus test for a concussion," he said. "We know now that we need to make sure a player has had a thorough and proper evaluation, involving a symptoms checklist, a standardized assessment and balance and cognitive testing, before being returned to play. This evaluation has to be done on a case-by-case basis, so each person goes through an individualized recovery process."
Medicinenet.com
Originally published March 18, 2013
Any athlete who suffers a suspected concussion should be withdrawn from play and stay on the sidelines until a qualified health care professional determines that all symptoms have subsided and it is safe to return to the field, new guidelines state.
Issued by the American Academy of Neurology, the latest recommendations aim to keep young athletes as safe as possible.
"With the older guidelines, we were trying to rate concussions at the time of the injury and predict recovery times, but now we know, 'When in doubt, sit 'em out,'" said guideline co-author Dr. Christopher Giza, an associate professor of pediatric neurology and neurosurgery with the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Mattel Children's Hospital.
"The point is that no single quick test is really a litmus test for a concussion," he said. "We know now that we need to make sure a player has had a thorough and proper evaluation, involving a symptoms checklist, a standardized assessment and balance and cognitive testing, before being returned to play. This evaluation has to be done on a case-by-case basis, so each person goes through an individualized recovery process."
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
There is more to end-of-life practices than euthanasia — Authors' reply
The Lancet
Volume 381, Issue 9862, Pages 202-203
Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, Hans van Delden, Anges van der Heide
We agree with Jan Schildmann and Eva Schildmann that the debate on end-of-life practices should not be limited to euthanasia. We also agree that increased attention to palliative care does not necessarily result in good quality end-of-life care. Our study gives an insight into end-of-life decision making and end-of-life acts, but not into the quality of end-of-life care. Additionally, what good quality end-of-life care consists of is not that straightforward. This is certainly true for palliative sedation. Although there is an increasing body of published studies on this subject, there are controversies on terminology and ethical acceptability of the practice. Guidelines are a way to try to overcome this and to improve quality of care. Yet there are many different guidelines—eg, at the institutional level and in different countries—and the premises of national guidelines can be the subject of debate. In our opinion, the role of empirical studies such as ours is to underpin the ongoing debate with information about what occurs in practice.
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60087-2
Volume 381, Issue 9862, Pages 202-203
Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, Hans van Delden, Anges van der Heide
We agree with Jan Schildmann and Eva Schildmann that the debate on end-of-life practices should not be limited to euthanasia. We also agree that increased attention to palliative care does not necessarily result in good quality end-of-life care. Our study gives an insight into end-of-life decision making and end-of-life acts, but not into the quality of end-of-life care. Additionally, what good quality end-of-life care consists of is not that straightforward. This is certainly true for palliative sedation. Although there is an increasing body of published studies on this subject, there are controversies on terminology and ethical acceptability of the practice. Guidelines are a way to try to overcome this and to improve quality of care. Yet there are many different guidelines—eg, at the institutional level and in different countries—and the premises of national guidelines can be the subject of debate. In our opinion, the role of empirical studies such as ours is to underpin the ongoing debate with information about what occurs in practice.
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60087-2
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder: Guidelines from the ApA
by Mary Elizabeth Dallas
MedicineNet.com
Originally published on July 6, 2012
Psychiatrists who see transgender patients need specific guidelines to help determine the best course of treatment, according to new report from the American Psychiatric Association.
The American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder also calls for the psychiatrists' group to clarify its position on the health care and civil rights of people who are transgender or transitioning gender, meaning they are in the process of changing their gender through hormones and surgery.
The entire story is here.
The guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association are here.
MedicineNet.com
Originally published on July 6, 2012
Psychiatrists who see transgender patients need specific guidelines to help determine the best course of treatment, according to new report from the American Psychiatric Association.
The American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder also calls for the psychiatrists' group to clarify its position on the health care and civil rights of people who are transgender or transitioning gender, meaning they are in the process of changing their gender through hormones and surgery.
The entire story is here.
The guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association are here.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
CDC Social Media Tools, Guidelines & Best Practices
The site can be found here.
The site includes a Social Media Toolkit, a Guide to Writing for Social Media, and Twitter Guidelines and Best Practices, to name a few.
Thanks to Pauline Wallin for this information.
Another link to these resources can be found on our Resources, Guides, and Guidelines page.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Practice Guidelines Regarding Psychologists' Involvement in Pharmacological Issues
A psychologist can download this document for future reference.
There is a link to this document under "Relevant Links".
APA Pharmacological
There is a link to this document under "Relevant Links".
APA Pharmacological
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Many on Medical Guideline Panels Have Conflicts of Interest
By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
HealthDay Reporter
"The concern is that compensation by industry on some of these panels can pose a potential risk of industry influence on the guideline recommendations," said Dr. Jennifer Neuman, lead author of a paper published online Oct. 11 in the BMJ.
Clinical practice guidelines are meant to direct health care professionals on how to best care for patients.
In the United States and Canada, most organizations (including nonprofit and governmental bodies) have their own protocol for divulging conflicts of interest.
And recently, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published recommendations on how organizations should manage conflicts of interest when drawing up guidelines. Among other things, the institute advocated excluding individuals with financial ties to the drug industry.
The rest of the story can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)