Making Ethics Work in Collaborative Projects

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Emily Mauldon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Primary Health

This article discusses problems a research team had managing their ethical obligations during a short project, and considers the implications of these problems for better understanding and carrying out ethical research in the future. Two key points will be proposed. Initially, it will be argued that the culture of ethical research as articulated within the research community may not be universally accepted within the primary health care sector. The nature of "ethical conduct" within clinical practice, service provision and research is not the same. Further, practical difficulties the researchers experienced while trying to gain approval from ethics committees and implement the proposed research plan highlight some ways in which institutional ethical review processes are structurally unsuited to the requirements of small collaborative projects. Understanding the different ways in which the term "ethics" is used will allow for a more expedient translation of concepts between different health professionals. Recognising the practical constraints ethical review places on the research process may help reduce some of the frustration primary health care professionals can experience when faced with the requirements of research ethics committees. Due to the history of, and cultural commitment to, ethical research within the university sector, those with formal academic training in research are well placed to assume responsibility for managing the ethics process when involved in cross-sectoral research. This responsibility may include the need to educate team members and study participants about the importance of research ethics.

Disaster Management in Rural and Remote Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-369
Author(s):  
Katie A. Willson ◽  
Gerard J. FitzGerald ◽  
David Lim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Disaster Management ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Primary Health

AbstractObjective:This scoping review aims to map the roles of rural and remote primary health care professionals (PHCPs) during disasters.Introduction:Disasters can have catastrophic impacts on society and are broadly classified into natural events, man-made incidents, or a mixture of both. The PHCPs working in rural and remote communities face additional challenges when dealing with disasters and have significant roles during the Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (PPRR) stages of disaster management.Methods:A Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology was utilized, and the search was conducted over seven electronic databases according to a priori protocol.Results:Forty-one papers were included and sixty-one roles were identified across the four stages of disaster management. The majority of disasters described within the literature were natural events and pandemics. Before a disaster occurs, PHCPs can build individual resilience through education. As recognized and respected leaders within their community, PHCPs are invaluable in assisting with disaster preparedness through being involved in organizations’ planning policies and contributing to natural disaster and pandemic surveillance. Key roles during the response stage include accommodating patient surge, triage, maintaining the health of the remaining population, instituting infection control, and ensuring a team-based approach to mental health care during the disaster. In the aftermath and recovery stage, rural and remote PHCPs provide long-term follow up, assisting patients in accessing post-disaster support including delivery of mental health care.Conclusion:Rural and remote PHCPs play significant roles within their community throughout the continuum of disaster management. As a consequence of their flexible scope of practice, PHCPs are well-placed to be involved during all stages of disaster, from building of community resilience and contributing to early alert of pandemics, to participating in the direct response when a disaster occurs and leading the way to recovery.

The Use of and Attitude Towards Telehealth in Rural Communities

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Mauldon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Urban Hospital ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Rural Patients

This paper reports on the attitudes of a sample of health care providers towards the use of telehealth to support rural patients and integrate rural primary health and urban hospital care. Telehealth and other information technologies hold the promise of improving the quality of care for people in rural and remote areas and for supporting rural primary health care providers. While seemingly beneficial for rural patients, study participants believed that telehealth remains underused and poorly integrated into their practice. In general, participants thought that telehealth is potentially beneficial but places constraints on their activities, and few actually used it. Published literature usually reports either on the success of telehealth pilot projects or initiatives that are well resourced and do not reflect the constraints of routine practice, or has an international focus limiting its relevance to the Australian context. Because of the paucity of systematic and generalisable research into the effects of the routine use of telehealth to support rural patients, it is unclear why health care professionals choose to provide such services or the costs and benefits they incur in doing so. Research and policy initiatives continue to be needed to identify the impact of telehealth within the context of Australian primary health care and to develop strategies to support its use.

A Novel Framework for Reflecting on the Functioning of Research Ethics Review Panels

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macduff ◽  
Andrew McKie ◽  
Sheelagh Martindale ◽  
Anne Marie Rennie ◽  
Bernice West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

In the past decade structures and processes for the ethical review of UK health care research have undergone rapid change. Although this has focused users' attention on the functioning of review committees, it remains rare to read a substantive view from the inside. This article presents details of processes and findings resulting from a novel structured reflective exercise undertaken by a newly formed research ethics review panel in a university school of nursing and midwifery. By adopting and adapting some of the knowledge to be found in the art and science of malt whisky tasting, a framework for critical reflection is presented and applied. This enables analysis of the main contemporary issues for a review panel that is primarily concerned with research into nursing education and practice. In addition to structuring the panel's own literary narrative, the framework also generates useful visual representation for further reflection. Both the analysis of issues and the framework itself are presented as of potential value to all nurses, health care professionals and educationalists with an interest in ethical review.

Development of the perceptions of preventable adverse events assessment tool (PPAEAT): measurement properties and patients’ mental health status

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Franziska Maria Keller ◽  
Christina Derksen ◽  
Lukas Kötting ◽  
Martina Schmiedhofer ◽  
Sonia Lippke
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Item Scale

Abstract Background Patient-centered care and patient involvement have been increasingly recognized as crucial elements of patient safety. However, patient safety has rarely been evaluated from the patient perspective with a quantitative approach aiming at making patient safety and preventable adverse events measurable. Objectives The objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a questionnaire assessing patient safety by perceived triggers of preventable adverse events among patients in primary health-care settings while considering mental health. Methods Two hundred and ten participants were recruited through various digital and print channels and asked to complete an online survey between November 2019 and April 2020. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify domains of triggers of preventable adverse events affecting patient safety. Furthermore, a multi-trait scaling analysis was performed to evaluate internal reliability as well as item-scale convergent–discriminant validity. A multivariate analysis of covariance evaluated whether individuals below and above the symptom threshold for depression and generalized anxiety perceive triggers of preventable adverse events differently. Results The five factors determined were information and communication with patients, time constraints of health-care professionals, diagnosis and treatment, hygiene and communication among health-care professionals, and knowledge and operational procedures. The questionnaire demonstrated a good total and subscale internal consistency (α = 0.90, range = 0.75–0.88), good item-scale convergent validity with significant correlations between 0.57 and 0.78 (P < 0.05; P < 0.01) for all items with their associated subscales, and satisfactory item-scale discriminant validity between 0.14 and 0.55 (P > 0.05) with no significant correlations between the items and their competing subscales. The questionnaire further revealed to be a generic measure irrespective of patients’ mental health status. Patients older than 50 years of age perceived a significantly greater threat to their own safety compared to patients below that age. Conclusion The developed Perceptions of Preventable Adverse Events Assessment Tool (PPAEAT) exhibits good psychometric properties, which supports its use in future research and primary health-care practice. Further validation of the PPAEAT in different settings, languages and larger samples is needed. The results of this study need to be considered when assessing patient safety in the context of health-care research.

The Role of Primary Health Care Professionals

2017 ◽  
pp. 329-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso M. Cueto-Manzano ◽  
Héctor R. Martínez-Ramírez ◽  
Laura Cortés-Sanabria ◽  
Enrique Rojas-Campos
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Primary Health

scholarly journals Social Networking App Use Among Primary Health Care Professionals: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey

10.2196/11147 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e11147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesc X Marin-Gomez ◽  
Francesc Garcia Cuyas ◽  
Ramon Reig-Bolano ◽  
Jacobo Mendioroz ◽  
Pere Roura-Poch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Social Networking ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Primary Health

Evaluation of a no-smoking resource pack and training for primary health care professionals

1996 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola T A Hopkins ◽  
John A White ◽  
Lesley Rushton ◽  
Jackie Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
And Training

Evaluating health promotion projects in primary care: recent experiences in Scotland

1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Shiroyama ◽  
Lorna McKee ◽  
Linda McKie
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Health Care Team ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Health Care Fund ◽  
Evaluation Approaches

The evaluation of health promotion in primary health care has been brought to the forefront of debates in Scotland with the introduction of an evaluation component in every project funded under the Development of Health Care Fund scheme. The level of skills and empathy with evaluation approaches and research methods varies considerably between primary health care team members, and consequently academic researchers are increasingly being drawn into NHS debates on evaluation and health promotion in primary health care. In this article the authors draw upon their respective experiences as evaluators to highlight specific issues and concerns in the evaluation of health promotion in a primary health care setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document