Ethics Certification of Health Information Professionals

Abstract

SummaryObjectives: To 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 delivery that are currently in place. Methods: Following 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: The 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.

Telemedicine Practice: Review of the Current Ethical and Legal Challenges

“…[13][14][15] On the other hand, the work of medical specialties such as telesurgery and those of a juridical and philosophical nature that consider ethical aspects in a significant way are above all. [16][17][18][19][20] Thirteen articles expressly talk about informed consent to health services. Kluge 19 refers in his work to the informed consent inserted in the electronic file and places the patient's consent, in contrast to the medical paternalism still present in some societies ( Japan and China).…”

“…For maximum protection of data, many authors consider necessary uniform guidelines, similar to the GDPR in force in the European Union. 19,25,28,29 The provider in all articles has a strong responsibility for the use of devices, which must be safe, noninvasive (not to make the patient feel spied 21 upon), and easy to handle. Instead, the doctor must pay utmost attention when transmitting the patient's data to others (e.g., second opinion) and in the data storage.…”

The Debate on the Ethics of AI in Health Care: a Reconstruction and Critical Review

“…Key supporting literature Relevant aspects (ascending LoA6) The professional skills required of the healthcare workforce, including information governance skills (Kluge et al, 2018) Epistemic ( How traditional and non-traditional sources of health data can be incorporated into AI-Health decision making, how it can be appropriately protected and how it can be harmonised (e.g. Maher et al, 2019;Ploug & Holm, 2016;Richardson, Milam, & Chrysler, 2015;Townend, 2018) Epistemic (A, C, D, E, F) Normative (A, C, D, E, F) Overarching (A, C, D, E) How bioethical concepts (beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013) are challenged by AI-Health (Mittelstadt, 2019) Epistemic (B, F) Normative (A, C, D, F) Overarching (A, F)…”

The Debate on the Ethics of AI in Health Care: a Reconstruction and Critical Review

“…Also, there needs to be control over how the interface and design of AI-Health products influences HCP-patient-artificial-agent interactions (Cohen et al, 2014). Finally, a certification for professionals seeking to use AI-Health tools is also necessary for the adequate implementation and use of AI (Kluge, Lacroix, & Ruotsalainen, 2018).…”

“…Key supporting literature Relevant aspects (ascending LoA6) The professional skills required of the healthcare workforce, including information governance skills (Kluge et al, 2018) Epistemic ( How traditional and non-traditional sources of health data can be incorporated into AI-Health decision making, how it can be appropriately protected and how it can be harmonised (e.g. Maher et al, 2019;Ploug & Holm, 2016;Richardson, Milam, & Chrysler, 2015;Townend, 2018) Epistemic ( How concepts such as fairness, accountability and transparency can be maintained at scale (Morley & Floridi, 2019b) so that, for example, the output of algorithmic diagnostics does not result in economic benefits to specific drug producers or technology companies (Rosenfeld et al, 2019) Epistemic Awareness of the need to consider these questions is increasing, and efforts are being made at both a national and international level to adapt existing regulations so that they remain fit for purpose (The Lancet Digital Health, 2019).…”