Patient Data-Sharing for AI: Ethical Challenges, Catholic Solutions.

Recent news of Catholic and secular healthcare systems sharing electronic health record (EHR) data with technology companies for the purposes of developing artificial intelligence (AI) applications has drawn attention to the ethical and social challenges of such collaborations, including threats to patient privacy and confidentiality, undermining of patient consent, and lack of corporate transparency. Although the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services (ERDs) address collaborations between US Catholic healthcare providers and other entities, the ERDs do not adequately address the novel concerns seen in EHR data-sharing for AI development. Neither does the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule. This article describes ethical and social problems observed in recent patient data-sharing collaborations with AI companies and analyzes them in light of the guiding principles of the ERDs as well as the 2020 Rome Call to AI Ethics (RCAIE) document recently released by the Vatican. While both the ERDs and RCAIE guiding principles can inform future collaborations, we suggest that the next revision of the ERDs should consider addressing data-sharing and AI more directly. SUMMARY: Electronic health record data-sharing with artificial intelligence developers presents unique ethical and social challenges that can be addressed with updated United States Catholic Conference of Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives and guidance from the Vatican's 2020 Rome Call to AI Ethics.

Serious Ethical Violations in Medicine: A Statistical and Ethical Analysis of 280 Cases in the United States From 2008-2016.

Serious ethical violations in medicine, such as sexual abuse, criminal prescribing of opioids, and unnecessary surgeries, directly harm patients and undermine trust in the profession of medicine. We review the literature on violations in medicine and present an analysis of 280 cases. Nearly all cases involved repeated instances (97%) of intentional wrongdoing (99%), by males (95%) in nonacademic medical settings (95%), with oversight problems (89%) and a selfish motive such as financial gain or sex (90%). More than half of cases involved a wrongdoer with a suspected personality disorder or substance use disorder (51%). Despite clear patterns, no factors provide readily observable red flags, making prevention difficult. Early identification and intervention in cases requires significant policy shifts that prioritize the safety of patients over physician interests in privacy, fair processes, and proportionate disciplinary actions. We explore a series of 10 questions regarding policy, oversight, discipline, and education options. Satisfactory answers to these questions will require input from diverse stakeholders to help society negotiate effective and ethically balanced solutions.

Sexual Violation of Patients by Physicians: A Mixed-Methods, Exploratory Analysis of 101 Cases.

A mixed-method, exploratory design was used to examine 101 cases of sexual violations in medicine. The study involved content analysis of cases to characterize the physicians, patient-victims, the practice setting, kinds of sexual violations, and consequences to the perpetrator. In each case, a criminal law framework was used to examine how motives, means, and opportunity combined to generate sexual misconduct. Finally, cross-case analysis was performed to identify clusters of causal factors that explain specific kinds of sexual misconduct. Most cases involved a combination of five factors: male physicians (100%), older than the age of 39 (92%), who were not board certified (70%), practicing in nonacademic settings (94%) where they always examined patients alone (85%). Only three factors (suspected antisocial personality, physician board certification, and vulnerable patients) differed significantly across the different kinds of sexual abuse: personality disorders were suspected most frequently in cases of rape, physicians were more frequently board certified in cases of consensual sex with patients, and patients were more commonly vulnerable in cases of child molestation. Drawing on study findings and past research, we offer a series of recommendations to medical schools, medical boards, chaperones, patients, and the national practitioners database.

Navigating Clinical Ethics: Using Real Case Constellations to Guide Learners and Teachers in Medicine.

Case-based learning is a staple of clinical ethics education in medicine. The sources for medical educators generally are lengthy case books or single, often rare, case analyses in the literature. Busy clinicians may not have the time or inclination to sift through case books to find suitable teaching material, and the latter present unusual cases that many physicians may never encounter in their own practice. Relatively few articles present multiple cases involving ethical issues that are likely to appear in everyday practice in an accessible format for teaching. To fill this gap, we developed a series of paradigmatic cases based on the recurrent themes we identified through a systematic analysis of our clinical ethics consultations in a 5-year period and our collective clinical ethics judgment. We constructed four amalgam "bread-and-butter" ethics cases that are not overly service specific and can be used in medical and residency education along with specific questions for discussion. Topics include decision-making capacity, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, patient wishes and do not resuscitate orders, and brain death. Our objective was to help a range of residents and other physicians become more confident and facile in identifying and addressing recurrent ethical issues in their practice.

A Mixed-Method Analysis of Reports on 100 Cases of Improper Prescribing of Controlled Substances.

Improper prescribing of controlled substances contributes to opioid addictions and deaths by overdose. Studies conducted to-date have largely lacked a theoretical framework and ignored the interaction of individual with environmental factors. We conducted a mixed-method analysis of published reports on 100 cases that occurred in the United States. An average of 17 reports (e.g., from medical boards) per case were coded for 38 dichotomous variables describing the physician, setting, patients, and investigation. A theory on how the case occurred was developed for each case. Explanatory typologies were developed and then validated through hierarchical cluster analysis. Most cases involved physicians who were male (88%), >40 years old (90%), non-board certified (63%), and in small private practices (97%); 54% of cases reported facts about the physician indicative of self-centered personality traits. Three explanatory typologies were validated. Increasing oversight provided by peers and trainees may help prevent improper prescribing of controlled substances.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically. METHODS: We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research. RESULTS: We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages. CONCLUSIONS: Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Identifying potential kidney donors using social networking web sites.

Social networking sites like Facebook may be a powerful tool for increasing rates of live kidney donation. They allow for wide dissemination of information and discussion and could lessen anxiety associated with a face-to-face request for donation. However, sparse data exist on the use of social media for this purpose. We searched Facebook, the most popular social networking site, for publicly available English-language pages seeking kidney donors for a specific individual, abstracting information on the potential recipient, characteristics of the page itself, and whether potential donors were tested. In the 91 pages meeting inclusion criteria, the mean age of potential recipients was 37 (range: 2-69); 88% were US residents. Other posted information included the individual's photograph (76%), blood type (64%), cause of kidney disease (43%), and location (71%). Thirty-two percent of pages reported having potential donors tested, and 10% reported receiving a live-donor kidney transplant. Those reporting donor testing shared more potential recipient characteristics, provided more information about transplantation, and had higher page traffic. Facebook is already being used to identify potential kidney donors. Future studies should focus on how to safely, ethically, and effectively use social networking sites to inform potential donors and potentially expand live kidney donation.

Ethical principles for introducing device and/or mesh use into your practice.

Limited evidence and regulatory gaps complicate decisions regarding the use of mesh devices in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Although a manufacturer may have legal permission to market a product, this does not automatically mean that any use of the product is safe and effective. Therefore, surgeons are responsible for setting their own ethical standards when introducing new devices or technologies into their practice. This article outlines ethical principles to guide decisions concerning introducing mesh into your practice.

Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards.

In February 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released another report acknowledging that we still lack meaningful, validated, widely-accepted measures for evaluating institutional review board (IRB) quality and effectiveness. This challenge is well known to the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (www.AEREO.org), a collaborative group of human research protection (HRP) professionals, researchers, and research ethicists founded in 2018 to do precisely what GAO recommends: examine approaches for measuring IRB effectiveness in protecting human subjects, and implement the approaches as appropriate. Two underlying tenets have been central to AEREO's as approach to thinking about IRB quality and effectiveness: (1) IRBs exist to protect participants and thus the participant perspective should be central to all IRBs do; and (2) because IRBs are tasked with applying subjective ethical and regulatory standards about which people may disagree, their approach and decisions should at least meet the basic standard of reasonableness in terms of accounting for relevant perspectives, considering key factors, and providing defensible justifications. Critical to each of these tenets, IRBs should include diverse perspectives in their deliberations, find ways to meaningfully engage with relevant communities about their views regarding ethical research and appropriate participant protections, and be accountable to the public.

A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs.

BACKGROUND: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs. METHODS: We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. RESULTS: 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

What Can State Medical Boards Do to Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team's larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Institutional review board (IRB) expertise is necessarily limited by maintaining a manageable board size. IRBs are therefore permitted by regulation to rely on outside experts for review. However, little is known about whether, when, why, and how IRBs use outside experts. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of U.S. IRBs to characterize utilization of outside experts. Our study uses a descriptive, cross-sectional design to understand how IRBs engage with such experts and to identify areas where outside expertise is most frequently requested. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 18.4%, with 55.4% of respondents reporting their institution's IRB uses outside experts. Nearly all respondents who reported using outside experts indicated they do so less than once a month, but occasionally each year (95%). The most common method of identifying an outside expert was securing a previously known subject matter expert (83.3%). Most frequently, respondents sought consultation for scientific expertise not held by current members (69.6%). Almost all respondents whose IRBs had used outside experts reported an overall positive impact on the IRB review process (91.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the IRBs in our sample report use of outside experts; among them, outside experts were described as helpful, but their use was infrequent overall. Many IRBs report not relying on outside experts at all. This raises important questions about what type of engagement with outside experts should be viewed as optimal to promote the highest quality review. For example, few respondents sought assistance from a Community Advisory Board, which could address expertise gaps in community perspectives. Further exploration is needed to understand how to optimize IRB use of outside experts, including how to recognize when expertise is lacking, what barriers IRBs face in using outside experts, and perspectives on how outside expert review impacts IRB decision-making and review quality.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs' access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.