Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Technology is transforming service delivery in many health professions, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators must navigate legal and ethical complexities to facilitate virtual care while upholding their mandate to protect the public interest. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals who provide virtual care, discuss policy and practice implications of virtual care, and make recommendations for future research. We searched six multidisciplinary databases for academic literature published in English between January 2015 and May 2021. We also searched specific databases and websites for relevant grey literature. Sources were screened in duplicate against specified inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included. Data from included sources were extracted and descriptively synthesized. We identified five key findings. Most literature did not explicitly focus on the public interest aspects of regulating health professionals who provide virtual care. However, when the public interest was discussed, the dimension of access was emphasized. Criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care, and subnational occupational licensure was viewed as a barrier. The demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that health profession regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for competent practice. There are indications that the public interest concept is evolving in relation to virtual care as regulators continue to balance public safety, equitable access to services, and economic competitiveness. Non-Technical Summary Technology is transforming how many health professionals provide services, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these health professionals are accountable to a regulator that sets standards of practice, including for virtual care. These regulators have a mandate to protect the public. We conducted a review to determine whether there was existing evidence or literature about how these regulators were working to protect patients when health professionals were providing virtual care. Most of the literature we found did not explicitly focus on the public interest when discussing how to regulate health professionals who provide virtual care. However, when the public interest was discussed, access to care was emphasized. Criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care, especially as the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed regulatory changes. Virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for health professionals to be competent.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,175 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».