MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4251434139 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-100.3.26

State Member Board Briefs

2014· article· en· W4251434139 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMember stateState (computer science)Editorial boardMember statesPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceLibrary scienceInternational tradeEuropean unionProgramming language

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Prior to the new NDPAP, the Board had operated a confidential physician health program to address physician health issues for the last two decades. The new program was made possible by legislative changes sought by the Board in 2013, allowing the formation of an independent entity that would continue the former program and enhance it through the addition of new medical and clinical staff.The NDPAP will be a member of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs.In its most recent online newsletter, the Board said part of its motivation in creating the new program was that “the separation of the program operation from the licensing board would make it easier for the family and colleagues of physicians and physician assistants with health issues to make confidential referrals earlier in the disease process, before there was a threat of impairment.”“The safety of the public will be maintained by the assurance that any practice-related violations will be reported promptly to the medical board, and strengthened through earlier identification, intervention and treatment of potentially impairing conditions,” it said.The NDPAP has hired Tammy King as its executive director and Barrie March, MD, as its medical director.Source: The Examiner, newsletter of the North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners, August 2014The Oregon Medical Board (OMB) is celebrating its 125th anniversary in 2014. Established in 1889, the Board originally consisted of three board members and monitored only medical physicians.Today, the OMB consists of 12 board members and oversees over 18,000 professionals, including medical and osteopathic physicians, podiatric physicians, physician assistants, and acupuncturists. The Board is also responsible for establishing the scope of practice for Emergency Medical Services Providers.In a news article about its 125th anniversary, the Board wrote that since 1889, it “has been responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Oregon through licensing, investigation, and discipline in order to fulfill its mission of protecting the health, safety, and well-being of Oregon citizens. It is privileged to work with Oregon's physicians, physician assistants and acupuncturists, who constitute one of the finest groups of health care professionals in the country, in helping support this mission.”Source: Oregon Medical Board Report, Vol. 126, No. 2, 2014Two bills with significant impact on medical regulation in West Virginia, both supported by the West Virginia Board of Medicine (WVBM), were recently passed by the state legislature there.House Bill 4278 updates sections of the West Virginia Medical Practice Act that govern medical corporations and delineate WVBM's role in the issuance of certificates of authorizations to medical corporations. This bill clarifies the mechanism by which a domestic medical corporation or podiatry corporation may obtain a certificate of authorization to practice medicine in West Virginia through licensed physicians and podiatrists.The bill also authorizes the issuance of certificates of authorization under specific circumstances to physician-owned corporations formed in other states who wish to practice medicine in West Virginia through the corporation.Under provisions of the new legislation medical and podiatry corporations formed in other states are authorized to practice in West Virginia when they are fully physician and/or podiatrist owned; authorized to practice medicine, surgery or podiatry in its state of incorporation and such authorization is in good standing; their corporate ownership includes at least one physician or podiatrist licensed in West Virginia; and they designate a West Virginia licensed physician or podiatrist shareholder for all communications with the board regarding the designation and continuing authorization of the corporation as a foreign medical/podiatry corporation.The second bill of major importance to be passed in West Virginia is SB 425, known as the Physician Assistants Practice Act.The bill was proposed in close collaboration between WVBM and the state's Board of Osteopathic Medicine in an effort to clarify rules for the licensing and regulation of the practice of physician assistants (PAs) who work under the supervision of physicians.The bill creates a separate article that allows both boards a shared legal platform from which to license and regulate PAs in a uniform manner. In doing so, sections of the state's Medical Practice Act related to PAs have been repealed and replaced by the new law.The Physician Assistants Practice Act modernizes the licensure and regulation of PAs by the WVBM and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine. It permits PAs to obtain licensure prior to finding employment, prohibits them from practicing without an approved practice agreement on file with the regulatory boards and authorizes them to practice under volunteer licenses/endorsements. The bill does not modify in any way the established scope of practice for PAs.Previous law permitted a physician to supervise up to three PAs at a time. The new law has increased this limit to five. The bill also streamlines the administrative application process for PAs, including making it possible in many cases, for proposed practice agreements to be reviewed and approved by the boards without the need to await their next scheduled meeting.The new law also clarifies in its language that PAs are afforded the same due process and procedural protections as physicians and podiatrists in the licensure disciplinary process, and that they may be subject to the same disciplinary penalties for the same professional conduct violations.To learn more about either of the bills, please visit www.wvbom.wv.gov.Source: West Virginia Board of Medicine Quarterly Newsletter, Spring/Summer 2014

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)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,313
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,020
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 recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,000

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 Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,460
Écart entre enseignants0,398 · 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'étudeSans objet
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
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Medical RegulationMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207