ArticleYearbook of medical informatics2018
Ethics Certification of Health Information Professionals.
Article in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedicine and Telementoring in Urology: A Glimpse of the Past and a Leap Into the Future.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Teasing out Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: An Ethical Critique of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Medicine.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Telemedicine Practice: Review of the Current Ethical and Legal Challenges.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2020Article
- Designing a model of professional ethics excellence for clinical librarians.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a model for ensuring the ethical acceptability of the provisions that characterize the interjurisdictional use of eHealth, telemedicine, and associated modalities of health care deliveiy that are currently in place.
methodsFollowing the approach initiated in their Global Protection of Health Data project within the Security in Health Information Systems (SiHIS) working group of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA), the authors analyze and evaluate relevant privacy and security approaches that are intended to stem the erosion of patients' trustworthiness in the handling of their sensitive information by health care and informatics professionals in the international context.
resultsThe authors found that while the majority of guidelines and ethical codes essentially focus on the role and functioning of the institutions that use EHRs and information technologies, little if any attention has been paid to the qualifications of the health informatics professionals (HIPs) who actualize and operate information systems to deal with or address relevant ethical issues.
conclusionThe apparent failure to address this matter indicates that the ethical qualification of HIPs remains an important security issue and that the Global Protection of Health Data project initiated by the SiHIS working group in 2015 should be expanded to develop into an internationally viable method of certification. An initial model to this effect is sketched and discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.