MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4236476496 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-106.3.33

International Briefs

2020· article· en· W4236476496 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA) has launched a new series of free webinars, examining a range of topics of interest to global regulators. The Zoom-based webinars feature speakers and panelists representing diverse regulatory and health organizations.On August 6, IAMRA hosted “The Medical Regulator’s Role in Cultural Safety and Health Equity,” which was inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement and examined the role of medical regulators in ensuring that people of all races and cultures have equal access to care and treatment, as well as the subconscious biases that may be entrenched in regulatory processes. Led by Joan Simeon, MPM, Chief Executive Officer of the Medical Council of New Zealand, speakers included Curtis Walker, MB, ChB, FRACP, Chair of the Medical Council of New Zealand; Bryant A. Murphy, MD, MBA, President of the North Carolina Medical Board (U.S.); and Dr. Kgosietsile Letlape, President of the Health Professions Council of South Africa and Chair of IAMRA.On August 26, IAMRA hosted “COVID-19 and the Acceleration of Virtual Care and Virtual Regulation: Lessons and Questions from Canada.” The webinar explored the topic of virtual governance and virtual performance accountability. Speakers included Heidi Oetter, MD, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and Chair-elect of IAMRA; Fleur-Ange Lefebvre, PhD, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada; and Scott McLeod, MD, CCFP, FCFP, Registrar and CEO of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.IAMRA’s latest webinar, “Registration Assessments in a Pandemic Environment,” held September 28, focused on the key issues of assessment that are of interest from an international regulatory point of view, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on registration assessments, interim arrangements for assessments, planning for the future and risk mitigation. Led by Paul Reynolds, Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement at the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) and a member of the IAMRA Management Committee, speakers included Richard Hankins, PhD, Head of Assessments at the GMC; Philip Pigou, LLB, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Medical Council; David Johnson, MA, Chief Assessment Officer at the Federation of State Medical Boards; and Michael Barone, MD, Vice President of Licensure Programs at the National Board of Medical Examiners.IAMRA will host additional webinars throughout the remainder of the year. Recordings of the webinars are available to IAMRA members in the Members Only section of the IAMRA website, and to non-members through the IAMRA Secretariat.For more information on the webinars or IAMRA, please contact the IAMRA Secretariat at secretariat@iamra.com.Source: IAMRA website and email news announcementsThe Medical Council of New Zealand, in partnership with Te Ohu Rata O Aotearoa (Te ORA) — an organization representing Māori medical students and medical practitioners — has released an independent research report outlining findings on the current state of cultural safety and health equity delivered by physicians in New Zealand.The report examines equity and care delivery issues between New Zealand’s minority Māori population and New Zealanders of European descent, who make up approximately 70% of the nation’s population.The report, released September 25, examines conscious and unconscious biases and other issues that contribute to systemic racism and a lack of health equity among Māori patients, offering a series of recommendations to address these issues.While Māori patients’ experiences are the focus of the report, it states that “many of the challenges and solutions will be applicable to other ethnic groups and populations who experience inequitable health care.”Among the report’s observations are that systemic racism must be acknowledged, along with the structural barriers in New Zealand’s medical system that can lead to inequities. The report recommends a number of remedies, including steps to raise awareness of and respect for cultural differences, the implementation of recruiting strategies to increase the number of Māori physicians and ensuring that Māori populations have a greater role in governance and decision-making within health organizations.According to the Medical Council, the report forms the baseline from which a wider evaluation will be undertaken on a range of initiatives in a joint program between the Medical Council and Te ORA.“While this report offers an insight into current practice that we can learn from, it is only the first step on this long journey,” said Curtis Walker, MB, ChB, FRACP, Chair of the Medical Council. “We know there is much work to do.”“Colonization and systemic racism has had a significant effect on health outcomes and we need to understand that inequity is deep-seated in our society, it is complex and it can impact on patient engagement in their health care and the choices they make,” said Professor David Tipene-Leach, Chair of Te ORA.The full report is available from the Medical Council its website, www.mcnz.org.nz.Source: Medical Council of New Zealand news release, September 25, 2020The UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) has published new guidance urging physicians to put a stronger emphasis on involving patients more proactively in decision-making and other elements of their care.According to the GMC, following several “key principles” of consent and decision-making helps achieve better outcomes, while at the same time lessening the likelihood of complaints by patients about the care they receive.The GMC’s new guidance, published in September, takes effect November 9, 2020.Included is a single-page summary with key principles physicians need to know. Among them: All patients have the right to be involved in decisions about their treatment and care, and to be supported to make informed decisions.Decision making is an ongoing process focused on meaningful dialogue, based on the exchange of relevant information specific to the patient.All patients have the right to be listened to, and to be given the information they need to make a decision and the time and support they need to understand it.Doctors must try to find out what matters to patients so they can share relevant information about the benefits and harms of proposed options and reasonable alternatives.Doctors must start from the presumption that all adult patients have capacity to make decisions about their treatment and care. A patient can only be judged to lack capacity after assessment in line with legal requirements.Colin Melville, MB, ChB, the GMC’s Medical Director and Director of Education and Standards, noted that physicians work in “pressured environments and in challenging circumstances, impacting on the time they have with patients. It is therefore critical their conversations with patients are meaningful, and that they support patients to make decisions that are right for them.”The full guidance is available at the GMC’s website, www.gmc-uk.org.Source: GMC news release, September 30, 2020

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,943
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,306 · 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.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Medical RegulationMême sujetBiomedical Ethics and RegulationTravaux en français237 207