Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 17(12): e0279808, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36584081

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The United States health care sector is one of the largest polluting industries, which has significant adverse effects on human health. Medical device reprocessing (MDR) is a sustainability solution that has the potential to decrease hospital waste, cut carbon emissions, reduce spending, and improve supply chain resiliency; however, only a small proportion of FDA-approved devices are actually reprocessed. Thus, we conducted a qualitative study to understand barriers and facilitators of scaling up MDR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders (exceeding thematic saturation) at a large academic health system in New England and national MDR organizations. We also collected observations through site visits at the health system. We recruited participants from June 2021 to April 2022 through purposive sampling. Using an analytic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we applied inductive and deductive codes related to key implementation constructs. We then conducted a thematic analysis and identified five overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators of MDR. First, respondents explained that regulatory bodies and original equipment manufacturers determine which devices can be reprocessed. For example, some respondents described that original equipment manufacturers use tactics of forced obsolescence that prevent their devices from being reprocessed. Second, respondents explained that MDR has variable compatibility with hospital priorities; for example, the potential cost savings of MDR is compatible with their priorities, while the perception of decreased functionality of reprocessed medical devices is incompatible. Third, respondents described that physician preferences influence which reprocessed devices get ordered. Fourth, respondents explained that variable staff knowledge and beliefs about MDR influence their motivations to select and collect reprocessable devices. Lastly, respondents emphasized that there was a lack of infrastructure for evaluating and maintaining MDR programs within their health system. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we have outlined a number of recommendations that target these barriers and facilitators so that the environmental and financial benefits of MDR can be realized at this health system and nationally. For example, implementing federal policies that prevent original equipment manufacturers from using tactics of forced obsolescence can facilitate the scale-up of MDR nationally. Additionally, providing life cycle assessments that compare the environmental effects of single-use disposable, reprocessable disposable, and reusable devices could facilitate health systems' purchasing decisions. Creating and disseminating audit and feedback reports to hospital staff might also facilitate their continued engagement in the program. Lastly, hiring a full-time program manager that leads MDR programs within health systems could improve program sustainability.


Assuntos
Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Reutilização de Equipamento , Participação dos Interessados , Humanos , New England , Recursos Humanos em Hospital/psicologia , Médicos/psicologia , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Estados Unidos
2.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 42(4): 459-68, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25492072

RESUMO

Journalists often turn to psychiatrists for analysis of medical, social, political, and cultural events that involve human behavior and illness. Once journalists seek their expertise, psychiatrists often rush to be helpful, which can lead to ineffective performance and to statements that may run afoul of principles of professional ethics. In this article, we discuss the bases on which the professionalism of psychiatrists may be impugned when they commit errors in their media presentations. Found within the Principles of Medical Ethics with Special Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, the Goldwater Rule prohibits certain behaviors when psychiatrists share professional opinions with the public. We first discuss the Goldwater Rule, highlighting the events that led to its development and the professional response to its enactment. We then present a method to guide psychiatrists in their interaction with the media that will help them avoid violating ethics principles or the law. The method encourages knowledge of a framework of ethics principles that in turn guide the psychiatrist's behavior and thinking as he contemplates accepting invitations to interact with the media. The ethics-based roles include the Teacher, the Storyteller, the Celebrity Commentator, the Hollywood Consultant, the Clinician, and the Advertiser.


Assuntos
Ética Médica , Meios de Comunicação de Massa/ética , Psiquiatria/ética , Responsabilidade Social , Confidencialidade/ética , Confidencialidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Difamação/legislação & jurisprudência , Prova Pericial/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Meios de Comunicação de Massa/legislação & jurisprudência , Obrigações Morais , Política , Profissionalismo , Psiquiatria/legislação & jurisprudência , Opinião Pública , Estados Unidos , Violência/ética , Violência/legislação & jurisprudência , Violência/psicologia
3.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 40(3): 399-408, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22960923

RESUMO

A recent Florida law, Medical Privacy Concerning Firearms, potentially bars physicians from being able to ask patients about firearms ownership unless safety is an immediate concern. The ability of physicians to provide preventive medicine and perform risk assessments could be threatened. The ensuing debate has focused on a political and constitutional battleground between physicians and patients. In this article, we analyze the arguments from both perspectives and offer suggestions to physicians facing this unique clinical dilemma.


Assuntos
Armas de Fogo , Propriedade , Relações Médico-Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Privacidade/legislação & jurisprudência , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Florida , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Relações Médico-Paciente/ética , Medição de Risco/ética , Medição de Risco/legislação & jurisprudência , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...