Legal and regulatory primer for the practice of telemedicine in the United States

After two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has become a critical and permanent component of the global healthcare spectrum. With the rising acceptance of telemedicine globally and the importance of providing patients with high-quality care via virtual technology, this chapter aims to educate the reader on the significant and emerging legal and regulatory issues related to the practice of telemedicine. The chapter provides a step-by-step summary of the primary legal and regulatory considerations that must be addressed in order to advance and maintain an effective and high-quality telemedicine platform. As explained herein, the current legal and regulatory landscape remains fluid and challenging. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022. All rights reserved.

Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

BACKGROUND: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. METHODS: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. RESULTS: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Secondary research use of personal medical data: patient attitudes towards data donation.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted once more the great need for comprehensive access to, and uncomplicated use of, pre-existing patient data for medical research. Enabling secondary research-use of patient-data is a prerequisite for the efficient and sustainable promotion of translation and personalisation in medicine, and for the advancement of public-health. However, balancing the legitimate interests of scientists in broad and unrestricted data-access and the demand for individual autonomy, privacy and social justice is a great challenge for patient-based medical research. METHODS: We therefore conducted two questionnaire-based surveys among North-German outpatients (n = 650) to determine their attitude towards data-donation for medical research, implemented as an opt-out-process. RESULTS: We observed a high level of acceptance (75.0%), the most powerful predictor of a positive attitude towards data-donation was the conviction that every citizen has a duty to contribute to the improvement of medical research (> 80% of participants approving data-donation). Interestingly, patients distinguished sharply between research inside and outside the EU, despite a general awareness that universities and public research institutions cooperate with commercial companies, willingness to allow use of donated data by the latter was very low (7.1% to 29.1%, depending upon location of company). The most popular measures among interviewees to counteract reservations against commercial data-use were regulation by law (61.4%), stipulating in the process that data are not sold or resold (84.6%). A majority requested control of both the use (46.8%) and the protection (41.5%) of the data by independent bodies. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, data-donation for medical research, implemented as a combination of legal entitlement and easy-to-exercise-right to opt-out, was found to be widely supported by German patients and therefore warrants further consideration for a transposition into national law.

Designing and testing a blockchain application for patient identity management in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare systems suffer from a lack of interoperability that creates "data silos," causing patient linkage and data sharing problems. Blockchain technology's unique architecture provides individuals greater control over their information and may help address some of the problems related to health data. A multidisciplinary team designed and tested a blockchain application, MediLinker, as a patient-centric identity management system. METHODS: The study used simulated data of "avatars" representing different types of patients. Thirty study participants were enrolled to visit simulated clinics, and perform various activities using MediLinker. Evaluation was based on Bouras' criteria for patient-centric identity management and on the number of errors in entry and sharing of data by participants. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 30 participants completed all study activities. MediLinker fulfilled all of Bouras' criteria except for one which was not testable. A majority of data errors were due to user error, such as wrong formatting and misspellings. Generally, the number of errors decreased with time. Due to COVID-19, sprint 2 was completed using "virtual" clinic visits. The number of user errors were less in virtual visits than in personal visits. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of MediLinker provides some evidence of the potential of a patient-centric identity management system using blockchain technology. The results showed a working system where patients have greater control over their information and can also easily provide consent for use of their data. CONCLUSION: Blockchain applications for identity management hold great promise for use in healthcare but further research is needed before real-world adoption.

Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Do patients want to have surgery?

AIMS: As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. METHODS: This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. RESULTS: Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267-271.