MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W115104206

College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta Response to the Health Law Institute Report

2012· article· en· W115104206 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Trevor Theman, Janet L. Wright

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConfidentialityHealth careMandatePublic healthMedicinePopulationFamily medicinePopulation healthPolitical scienceNursingLawEnvironmental health
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction All physician health programs share the goals of a healthy physician membership that provides safe and effective medical care to the population it serves. In Alberta, the College of Physicians [delta] Surgeons (CPSA), as the regulator of the practice of medicine in Alberta, and the Alberta Medical Association (AMA), as the advocacy organization for physicians in Alberta, have shared the responsibility for the physician health program. As the College's mandate is to regulate the profession in the public interest, the College's predominant interest in its physician health role is to ensure the safety of the public. In late 2010, the CPSA came under the Alberta Health Professions Act (1), which required the College to adopt Standards of Practice for its members, such standards setting out the minimum expectations for physicians in Alberta. The Health Professions Act requires that new standards, or modifications to a standard, must be sent to all members (and others) for consultation before final approval by College Council. One such standard dealt with the responsibilities of physicians--and the colleagues of physicians--to report to the College when a health condition could impact practice. From the consultation, the College heard from physicians and the Alberta Medical Association concern that this reporting requirement could influence physicians not to seek appropriate care and perhaps drive them underground. Concerns were also expressed about the need to keep confidential medical conditions and medical treatment of physicians who have health issues. As a medical regulator we felt that it was essential that medical conditions that could affect a physician's practice be identified and managed. Our College has managed physician health issues outside the disciplinary process for many years and most physicians with health issues return to practice after their condition is managed with ongoing monitoring as needed. Early identification and management of medical conditions prior to any harm occurring to patients was in keeping with the College's obligation to ensure the competency of medical practitioners and the safety of the public. Genesis of the Health Law Institute Policy Paper Discussions between the Alberta Medical Association's Physician and Family Support Program and the College did not resolve our differences. We then engaged the Health Law Institute (HLI) to convene a panel of experts (health law, ethics, and public policy) to provide advice and perspective on the ethical and legal aspects to be considered. They were asked the following question: * For Alberta, what is the recommended model for a program that strives to meet both the regulatory imperatives and the rehabilitative needs of at-risk physicians? We asked related questions: i. What should the respective roles of the CPSA and the AMA be in the recommended model? ii. What agency/organization is best suited to assess the risk of a physician with a condition that could affect his/her ability to provide safe patient care? Who has primary responsibility to assess and determine risk, and what other factors should be considered? iii. How should questions be framed on regulation applications and annual renewals within the Standard of Practice? iv. Should the questions only address conditions that have already impacted practice? Should questions attempt to identify risk to patients before practice has been impacted? How should this be balanced with the privacy needs of physicians? The 2012 HLI report titled Physicians with Health Conditions: Law and Policy Reform to Protect the Public and Physician-Patients (2) carefully examined the balance of public protection with the privacy rights of physicians and its discussion of ethical, legal, public policy, and human rights principles was extremely helpful. Physicians work in a safety sensitive area, and, therefore, their privacy rights are not absolute; however, we acknowledge that not every medical condition has the potential to negatively affect practice. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,020
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,594
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,987

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0200,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,114
Tête enseignante GPT0,492
Écart entre enseignants0,378 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207