MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine
-
Comparative Study
Consumers are ready to accept the transition to online and electronic records if they can be assured of the security measures.
Healthcare has entered the electronic domain. This domain has improved data collection and storage abilities while allowing almost instantaneous access and results to data queries. Furthermore, it allows direct communication between healthcare providers and health consumers. The development of privacy, confidentiality, and security principles are necessary to protect consumers' interests against inappropriate access. Studies have shown that the health consumer is the important stakeholder in this process. With the international push toward electronic health records (EHRs), this article presents the importance of secure EHR systems from the public's perspective. ⋯ The findings showed that for the EHR to be fully integrating in the health sector, there are 2 main issues that need to be addressed: The security of the EHR system has to be of the highest level, and needs to be constantly monitored and updated. The involvement of the health consumer in the ownership and maintenance of their health record needs to be more proactive. The EHR aims to collect information to allow for "cradle to the grave" treatment; thus, the health consumer has to be seen as a major player in ensuring that this can happen correctly. The results from this study indicated that the consumer is ready to accept the transition, as long as one can be assured of the security of the system.
-
The ritual of taking an oath upon graduating from medical school is, with a few exceptions, a routine requirement for graduation. Albeit that many students believe that they have taken the Hippocratic Oath, this is virtually never the case. Very often students themselves write many of these oaths, and taking such an oath impresses the student as well as the public, who are potential patients. ⋯ This becomes impossible when uninsured patients are sent away at the front desk long before the physician can interact with them. Furthermore, the current fact that physicians often are confronted with not doing what they consider a necessary test (or prescribe what they think would be the best medication) raises the problem of either lying or suggesting to the patient that he/she do so--a fact that in the long run cannot help but damage the physician's veracity and the trust which patients put in their physicians. That virtually all codes of the American Medical Association (AMA) as well as the various specialties insist that physicians work toward universal access is stressed.
-
The purpose of this article is to discuss an evidence-based algorithm that can be implemented by the primary care physician in his/her daily clinical practice for the treatment of patients with neuropathic pain conditions. ⋯ Patients presenting with neuropathic pain are becoming a more frequent occurrence for the primary care physician as the population ages. Evidence-based treatment options allow for the most efficient and effective pharmacotherapy regimen to be implemented.
-
Many chaplains and most chaplaincy programs in the United States--with encouragement from their accrediting organization, the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education (ACPE)--have begun to assume a more proactive stance toward patients, healthcare professionals, and healthcare facilities. Some chaplains and chaplaincy programs have begun to engage in activities that have ranged from initiating conversations with and perusing the medical records of patients who have not requested their services to proposing that they be permitted to do "spiritual assessments" on patients--in some instances whether these patients have been explicitly informed and have agreed to this beforehand. ⋯ It would appear that such novel activities are being justified by a questionable set of claims and assumptions that includes: (1) the claim that chaplains have a spiritual--as opposed to purely religious--expertise that entitles them to interact with patients and/or significant others (even those who have not requested a chaplain)--presumably without in the least compromising patient autonomy or the confidentiality of the patient/healthcare professional relationship; (2) the assumption that the terms "spirituality" and "religiosity" mutually entail one another; (3) the claim that the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) mandates "spiritual assessments" (which it does not); (4) the assumption that chaplains are full-fledged members of the healthcare team; and (5) the claim that chaplains must, therefore, be permitted access to patients and patients' medical records both to gather information and to make notations of their own. We consider such claims and assumptions disquieting, and suggest that it is high time we revisit the terms "chaplaincy," "healthcare professional," and "member of the healthcare team" in reassessing what our professional commitments to respect and protect the bio-psycho-social integrity of patients require.