Artificial intelligence and social accountability in the Canadian health care landscape: A rapid literature review.

BACKGROUND: Situated within a larger project entitled "Exploring the Need for a Uniquely Different Approach in Northern Ontario: A Study of Socially Accountable Artificial Intelligence," this rapid review provides a broad look into how social accountability as an equity-oriented health policy strategy is guiding artificial intelligence (AI) across the Canadian health care landscape, particularly for marginalized regions and populations. This review synthesizes existing literature to answer the question: How is AI present and impacted by social accountability across the health care landscape in Canada? METHODOLOGY: A multidisciplinary expert panel with experience in diverse health care roles and computer sciences was assembled from multiple institutions in Northern Ontario to guide the study design and research team. A search strategy was developed that broadly reflected the concepts of social accountability, AI and health care in Canada. EMBASE and Medline databases were searched for articles, which were reviewed for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Search results, a description of the studies, and a thematic analysis of the included studies were reported as the primary outcome. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The search strategy yielded 679 articles of which 36 relevant studies were included. There were no studies identified that were guided by a comprehensive, equity-oriented social accountability strategy. Three major themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) designing equity into AI; (2) policies and regulations for AI; and (3) the inclusion of community voices in the implementation of AI in health care. Across the 3 main themes, equity, marginalized populations, and the need for community and partner engagement were frequently referenced, which are key concepts of a social accountability strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that unless there is a course correction, AI in the Canadian health care landscape will worsen the digital divide and health inequity. Social accountability as an equity-oriented strategy for AI could catalyze many of the changes required to prevent a worsening of the digital divide caused by the AI revolution in health care in Canada and should raise concerns for other global contexts.

Cultivating a psychological health and safety culture for interprofessional primary care teams through a co-created evidence-informed toolkit.

The psychological health and safety of healthcare workers workplaces and learning environments impacts the quality of healthcare services. To facilitate the psychological health and safety of interprofessional primary care teams, we curated a bilingual toolkit of 122 psychological health and safety resources comprising a multi-level categorization addressing individual, team, organization, and system-level interventions. The resources in the toolkit are organized by 7 themes, based on a clustering of the 15 psychosocial factors. Adopting the framework built on the 7 themes, this article describes the toolkit development process and how it addresses the key factors for psychologically healthy and safe workplaces to foster interprofessional collaboration. Implementation of the interventions in the toolkit is an important next step for which health system leadership is critical. Additionally, we identify several gaps and call on researchers, educators, and health leaders to address them in their future work.

Professional regulation in the digital era: A qualitative case study of three professions in Ontario, Canada.

Technology is transforming service delivery and practice in many regulated professions, altering required skills, scopes of practice, and the organization of professional work. Professional regulators face considerable pressure to facilitate technology-enabled work while adapting to digital changes in their practices and procedures. However, our understanding of how regulators are responding to technology-driven risks and the impact of technology on regulatory policy is limited. To examine the impact of technology and digitalization on regulation, we conducted an exploratory case study of the regulatory bodies for nursing, law, and social work in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected over two phases. First, we collected documents from the regulators' websites and regulatory consortiums. Second, we conducted key informant interviews with two representatives from each regulator. Data were thematically analyzed to explore the impact of technological change on regulatory activities and policies and to compare how regulatory structure and field shape this impact. Five themes were identified in our analysis: balancing efficiency potential with risks of certain technological advances; the potential for improving regulation through data analytics; considering how to regulate a technologically competent workforce; recalibrating pandemic emergency measures involving technology; and contemplating the future of technology on regulatory policy and practice. Regulators face ongoing challenges with providing equity-based approaches to regulating virtual practice, ensuring practitioners are technologically competent, and leveraging regulatory data to inform decision-making. Policymakers and regulators across Canada and internationally should prioritize risk-balanced policies, guidelines, and practice standards to support professional practice in the digital era.

Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review.

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. After screening, 59 academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included for analysis. We identified five key findings: the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care was only implicitly considered in most of the literature; 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; subnational licensure was viewed as a barrier; and the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Overall, 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.

Regulating During Crisis: A Qualitative Comparative Case Study of Nursing Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic placed intense pressure on nursing regulatory bodies to ensure an adequate healthcare workforce while maintaining public safety. Purpose: Our objectives were to analyze regulatory bodies' responses during the pandemic, examine how nursing regulators conceptualize the public interest during a public health crisis, and explore the influence of a public health crisis on the balancing of regulatory principles. We aimed to develop a clearer understanding of regulating during a crisis by identifying themes within regulatory responses. Methods: We conducted a qualitative comparative case study examining the pandemic responses of eight nursing regulators in three Canadian provinces and three U.S. states. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 19 representatives of nursing regulatory bodies and 206 publicly available documents and analyzed thematically. Results: Five themes were constructed from the data: (1) risk-based responses to reduce regulatory burden; (2) agility and flexibility in regulatory pandemic responses; (3) working with stakeholders for a systems-based approach; (4) valuing consistency in regulatory approaches across jurisdictions; and (5) the pandemic as a catalyst for innovation. Specifically, we identified that the meaning of "public interest" in the context of high workforce demand was a key consideration for regulators. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the intensity of effort involved in nursing regulatory responses and the significant contribution of nursing regulation to the healthcare system's pandemic response. Our results also indicate a shift in thinking around broader public interest issues, beyond the conduct and competence of individual nurses, to include pressing societal issues. Regulators are beginning to grapple with these longer-term issues and policy tensions.

Protecting the public interest when regulating health professionals providing virtual care: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care is transforming the nature of healthcare, particularly with the accelerated shift to telehealth and virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators face intense pressures to safely facilitate this type of healthcare while upholding their legislative mandate to protect the public. Challenges for health profession regulators have included providing practice guidance for virtual care, changing entry-to-practice requirements to include digital competencies, facilitating interjurisdictional virtual care through licensure and liability insurance requirements, and adapting disciplinary procedures. This scoping review will examine the literature on how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals providing virtual care. METHODS: This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Academic and grey literature will be retrieved from health sciences, social sciences, and legal databases using a comprehensive search strategy underpinned by Population-Concept-Context (PCC) inclusion criteria. Articles published in English since January 2015 will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full-text sources against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. One research team member will extract relevant data from the selected documents and a second will validate the extractions. DISCUSSION: Results will be presented in a descriptive synthesis that highlights implications for regulatory policy and professional practice, as well as study limitations and knowledge gaps that warrant further research. Given the rapid expansion of virtual care provision by regulated health professionals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mapping the literature on how the public interest is protected in this rapidly evolving digital health sector may help inform future regulatory reform and innovation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BD2ZX ).

Regulating in the public interest: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article has three aims. First, to reflect on how conceptualizations of the public interest may have shifted due to COVID-19. Second, to focus on the implications of regulatory responses for the health workforce and corresponding lessons as health leaders and systems transition from pandemic response to pandemic recovery. Third, to identify how these lessons lead to potential directions for future research, connecting regulation in a whole-of-systems approach to health system safety and health workforce capacity and sustainability. Pandemic regulatory responses highlighted both strengths and limitations of regulatory structures and frameworks. The COVID-19 pandemic may have introduced new considerations around regulating in the public interest, particularly as the impact of regulatory responses on the health workforce continues to be examined. Clearly articulating practitioner practice parameters, reducing barriers to practice, and working collaboratively with stakeholders were primary aspects of regulators' pandemic responses that impacted the health workforce.

Ontario family physicians' perspectives about their scope of practice: what is it, what drives it and how does it change?

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to show what scope of practice (SOP) means from the point of view of family physicians, how family physicians think about their SOP as it changes over time, or what factors shape and influence their SOP. Understanding family physician perspectives on SOP and the factors that influence it can aid our understanding of how it can constrain and enable physicians' agency and autonomy in professional practice. METHODS: Using qualitative description and incorporating constructivist grounded theory data collection and analysis techniques, four focus groups were conducted involving twenty-four Ontario-based family physicians from different contexts, at different career stages, and with different practice experiences. RESULTS: Participants' SOP was highly dynamic, changing throughout their careers due to factors both within and beyond their control. Their sense of their own SOP was the product of a continuous cycle of personal and professional transitions, exposures, and experiences throughout their careers. These family physicians sought regular and sustained mentorship, support, and engagement for their SOP throughout their careers. This was particularly the case during professional transitions and for drivers of their SOP for which they felt unprepared early in their careers, such as through the first years of independent practice, and when functioning as owner-operators of medical practices. Four descriptive themes were identified focusing on the nature of their current practice, their professional preparedness and supports, practice management dynamics, and 'doctors are people, too'. CONCLUSIONS: The SOP of the family physicians in this study was dynamic and unique to each individual, it emerged from interactions between their personal and professional lives and identities, and it was embedded in their lived experiences. SOP was also to some extent imposed and externally driven. This study advances understanding by exploring the 'why' and 'how' of SOP rather than focusing solely on what it is.