Assessment of Knowledge of Legal Provisions on Organ Donation and Transplantation amongst Healthcare Workers in Nigeria: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Advancements in the medical field have made organ transplantation an attractive treatment option for patients when indicated. Shortage of organs and commodification of organs are major challenges encountered in organ donation and transplantation. These could potentially breed unethical practices, if the process is not well regulated. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge of healthcare workers (HCWs) on the legal provisions regulating organ donation and transplantation in Nigeria. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study was conducted amongst physicians and nurses across Nigeria. Knowledge of legal provisions on organ donation and transplantation was assessed using a validated questionnaire that had 21 questions derived from the National Health Act. Each correctly answered question was given 1 point with a total obtainable score of 21 points. A score of ≥14 points was classified as good knowledge. P <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 836 physicians and nurses with a mean age of 37.61 ± 9.78 years participated in the study. Females and physicians constituted 53.3% and 62.9% of the respondents, respectively. The mean knowledge score of the respondents was 9.70 ± 2.91 points. Eighty-three (9.9%) respondents had a good knowledge score. There was a significantly higher proportion of male HCWs (P < 0.037) and older HCWs (P = 0.017) with good knowledge of legal provisions. On logistic regression, age was the only factor found to be associated with good knowledge of legal provision (adjusted odds ratio: 3.92; confidence interval: 1.33-11.59; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The overall knowledge of legal provisions on organ donation and transplant was very poor amongst HCWs in Nigeria. There is a need to educate them on these provisions to curb unethical practices.

When is a Health Practitioner Not "a Fit and Proper Person" to Practise Their Health Profession in Australia?

Prior to implementation of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law) the term "good character" was used in the statutory regulation of health practitioners in Australia. "Good character" has been jettisoned in the National Law and replaced with the concept of "fit and proper person". The term "fit and proper person" plays an important role in the regulation of health practitioners under the National Law. "Fit and proper person" is not defined in the National Law but case law has narrowed the term to refer to "moral integrity" and "rectitude of character". These considerations can be applied in the context of application for registration, immediate action, and disciplinary proceedings in relevant tribunals. Application of the "fit and proper person" test serves to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the health professions and the integrity of the regulatory regime, as distinct from protecting the public from unsafe and incompetent health professionals.

Investigating Investigation Powers under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

Investigators and inspectors appointed under the Australia Health Practitioner Regulation National Law play important roles by gathering and assessing evidence used in disciplinary proceedings and/or criminal prosecutions. In performing these roles, investigators and inspectors exercise "police-like" powers including coercive questioning and entry onto private property with or without a search warrant. The investigation process can add additional stress and anxiety for health practitioners who are subject to disciplinary proceedings. It is difficult for an aggrieved party to challenge the lawfulness of the exercise of an investigation power in a tribunal as tribunals lack jurisdiction to rule on the legality of an investigation power or the admissibility of evidence. This article explores the range of powers possessed by investigators and inspectors under the National Law and a number of issues relating to the exercise of those powers.

Patient-centred consent in women's health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?

BACKGROUND: Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals' views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. METHODS: Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility -engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women - assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman's views (3) Challenging professional contexts - healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation.

COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in the United States: a social justice policy.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is the most effective strategy to mitigating COVID-19 and restoring societal function. As the pandemic evolves with no certainty of a herd immunity threshold, universal vaccination of at-risk populations is desirable. However, vaccine hesitancy threatens the return to normalcy, and healthcare workers (HCWs) must embrace their ambassadorial role of shoring up vaccine confidence. Unfortunately, voluntary vaccination has been suboptimal among HCWs in the United States, a priority group for whom immunization is essential for maintaining health system capacity and the safety of high-risk patients in their care. Consequently, some health systems have implemented mandates to improve compliance. AREAS COVERED: This article discusses the ethical and practical considerations of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies for HCWs utilizing some components of the World Health Organization's framework and the unique context of a pandemic with evolving infection dynamics. EXPERT OPINION: COVID-19 vaccine mandates for universal immunization of HCWs raise ethical and practical debates about their appropriateness, especially when the vaccines are pending full approval in most jurisdictions. Given the superiority of the vaccines to safety and testing protocols and their favorable safety profile, we encourage health systems to adopt vaccination mandates through participatory processes that address the concerns of stakeholders.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

[COVID-19: Compulsory vaccination for workers in the medical field?] / COVID-19: Impflicht für Arbeitnehmer im medizinischen Bereich?

Now that the majority of medical personnel have been vaccinated against COVID-19 or are at least willing to be vaccinated, it is necessary to discuss whether employees can be required to be vaccinated. Can employers demand proof of vaccination, and are there consequences under labor law for refusing to vaccinate? Currently, there is no general legal COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Any mandatory vaccination is an encroachment on the fundamental right to physical integrity and to informational self-determination. This encroachment on fundamental rights must be weighed up in each individual case.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi compliance in regulated health practitioner competency documents in Aotearoa.

Within Aotearoa (New Zealand) there are systemic health inequities between Maori (the Indigenous people of Aotearoa) and other New Zealanders. These inequities are enabled in part by the failure of the health providers, policy and practitioners to fulfil treaty obligations to Maori as outlined in our foundational document, te Tiriti o Waitangi (te Tiriti). Regulated health professionals have the potential to play a central role in upholding te Tiriti and addressing inequities. Competency documents define health professionals' scope of practice and inform curriculum in health faculties. In this novel study, we critically examine 18 regulated health practitioners' competency documents, which were sourced from the websites of their respective professional bodies. The competencies were reviewed using an adapted criterion from Critical te Tiriti Analysis, a five-phase analysis process, to determine their compliance with te Tiriti. There was considerable variation in the quality of the competency documents reviewed. Most were not te Tiriti compliant. We identified a range of alternative competencies that could strengthen te Tiriti engagement. They focussed on (i) the importance of whanaungatanga (the active making of relationships with Maori), (ii) non-Maori consciously becoming an ally with Maori in the pursuit of racial justice and (iii) actively engaging in decolonisation or power-sharing. In the context of Aotearoa, competency documents need to be te Tiriti compliant to fulfil treaty obligations and policy expectations about health equity. An adapted version of Critical te Tiriti Analysis might be useful for those interested in racial justice who want to review health competencies in other colonial settings.

Is it discriminatory to require hospital staff to be clean shaven to facilitate the effective wearing of personal protective equipment?

National Health Service employers are subject to legal duties to protect the health and safety of their employees and third parties who come into contact with their staff. In order to discharge these duties, National Health Service employers must implement a range of protective measures to mitigate risk. One such measure is to require staff to wear personal protective equipment, including respiratory protective equipment, in certain circumstances. This is of particular importance during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the presence of facial hair has a negative impact on the effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment. This article discusses whether a requirement to be clean shaven could amount to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Healthcare professionals and patient information: a fresh look from the new italian law on consent.

ABSTRACT: This article discusses the importance of providing patients with adequate information and creating the care relationship, particularly focusing on the role of healthcare professionals in this activity. It examines the main legislative references on this topic at a European level and the new law, No. 219/2017, in Italy on informed consent that serves as a starting point for recalling important legal and ethical principles regarding the information to be provided to patients in the therapeutic relationship.

Knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing patterns of cannabis and cannabinoid-containing medicines among European healthcare workers: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the National Medical Cannabis Programme in The Netherlands, many other countries in Europe have made medical cannabis (MC) and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) available. However, each of them has implemented a unique legal framework and reimbursement strategy for these products. Therefore, it is vital to study healthcare professionals' knowledge level (HCP) and HCPs in-training regarding both medical uses and indications and understand their safety concerns and potential barriers for MC use in clinical practice. METHODS: A comprehensive, systematic literature review was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases, as well as PsychINFO. Grey literature was also included. Due to the high diversity in the questionnaires used in the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: From 6995 studies retrieved, ten studies, all of them being quantitative survey-based studies, were included in the review. In most studies, the majority of participants were in favor of MC and CBMs use for medical reasons. Other common findings were: the necessity to provide additional training regarding medical applications of cannabinoids, lack of awareness about the legal status of and regulations regarding MC among both certified physicians, as well as prospective doctors and students of other medicals sciences (e.g., nursing, pharmacy). CONCLUSIONS: For most European countries, we could not identify any studies evaluating HCPs' knowledge and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis. Therefore, similar investigations are highly encouraged. Available evidence demonstrates a need to provide medical training to the HCPs in Europe regarding medical applications of cannabinoids.

A qualitative study of clinicians' perspectives on independent rights advice for involuntary psychiatric patients in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia (BC), Canada, clinicians are responsible for giving involuntary psychiatric patients rights information upon admission. Yet an investigation by the BC Office of the Ombudsperson found that clinicians are not always fulfilling this responsibility. The Ombudsperson recommended that the provincial government fund an independent body to give rights advice to patients. METHODS: To understand how clinicians feel about this recommendation, focus groups of clinicians who may give psychiatric patients rights information (n = 81) were conducted in Vancouver, BC, to probe their attitudes toward independent rights advisors. The focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most clinicians believe that giving rights information is within their scope of practice, although some acknowledge that it poses a conflict of interest when the patient wishes to challenge the treatment team's decisions. Participants' chief concerns about an independent rights-advice service were that (a) patients may experience a delay in receiving their rights information, (b) integrating rights advisors into the workflow would complicate an already chaotic admission process, and (c) more patients would be counselled to challenge their hospitalization, leading to an increased administrative workload for clinical staff. However, many participants believed that independent rights advisors would be a positive addition to the admission process, both allowing clinicians to focus on treatment and serving as a source of rights-related information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally amenable to an independent rights-advice service, suggesting that the introduction of rights advisors need not result in an adversarial relationship between treatment team and patient, as opponents of the proposal fear. Clearly distinguishing between basic rights information and in-depth rights advice could address several of the clinicians' concerns about the role that independent rights advisors would play in the involuntary admission process. Clinicians' and other stakeholders' concerns should be considered as the province develops its rights-advice service.

Training hour requirements to provide acupuncture in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The National Academy of Medicine recommends, and Joint Commission requires, offering non-pharmacologic approaches to pain management, including acupuncture, to reduce opioid overuse in the United States. This study describes 2019 state training requirements to evaluate how they represent opportunities and barriers to increasing access to acupuncture. METHODS: We searched publicly available databases to identify Acupuncture Practice Acts and additional statutes and regulations pertaining to acupuncture training requirements on state licensure board websites. We then extracted state-specific acupuncture training requirements for individuals with and without a healthcare-related professional license. RESULTS: Thirty-three states allow physicians to provide acupuncture without requiring any additional training requirements, 11 states and the District of Columbia (DC) require 200-300 training hours, and three require physicians to obtain a separate acupuncture license. Three states have no regulatory agency ruling. Forty states require non-healthcare professionals to complete an accredited program of more than 1900 h and pass an examination. Twenty-three states have an Acupuncture Detoxification Specialist designation allowing individuals without a clinical professional license to provide auricular acupuncture for substance use disorder treatment after a 70-h training course. DISCUSSION: State-level training requirements are intended to increase safe and effective care, but variations represent a potential barrier to increasing the number of acupuncture providers in the United States. Allowing non-physician medical professionals to complete reduced training requirements for specific indications could be a model to increase access to acupuncture. The influence of training requirements on acupuncture access and opioid overuse needs examination.