Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JAMA ; 331(11): 909-910, 2024 03 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38373004

ABSTRACT

This Viewpoint summarizes a recent lawsuit alleging that a hospital violated patients' privacy by sharing electronic health record (EHR) data with Google for development of medical artificial intelligence (AI) and discusses how the federal court's decision in the case provides key insights for hospitals planning to share EHR data with for-profit companies developing medical AI.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Confidentiality , Delivery of Health Care , Search Engine , Humans , Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , Delivery of Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Electronic Health Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Privacy/legislation & jurisprudence , Search Engine/legislation & jurisprudence
2.
NPJ Digit Med ; 6(1): 77, 2023 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37100860

ABSTRACT

Two newly proposed Directives impact liability for artificial intelligence in the EU: a Product Liability Directive (PLD) and an AI Liability Directive (AILD). While these proposed Directives provide some uniform liability rules for AI-caused harm, they fail to fully accomplish the EU's goal of providing clarity and uniformity for liability for injuries caused by AI-driven goods and services. Instead, the Directives leave potential liability gaps for injuries caused by some black-box medical AI systems, which use opaque and complex reasoning to provide medical decisions and/or recommendations. Patients may not be able to successfully sue manufacturers or healthcare providers for some injuries caused by these black-box medical AI systems under either EU Member States' strict or fault-based liability laws. Since the proposed Directives fail to address these potential liability gaps, manufacturers and healthcare providers may have difficulty predicting liability risks associated with creating and/or using some potentially beneficial black-box medical AI systems.

3.
Am J Law Med ; 44(4): 579-605, 2018 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30802164

ABSTRACT

Voice in healthcare is crucial because of its ability to improve organizational performance and prevent medical errors. This paper contends that a comparative analysis of voice promotion in the American and German healthcare industries can strengthen a culture of safety in both countries. It provides a brief introduction to the concept of voice in healthcare, including its impact on safety culture, barriers to voice, and the dual influences of confidentiality and transparency on voice promotion policies. It then examines the theoretical basis, practical workings, and legal aspects of voluntary error reporting and error disclosure as avenues for exercising voice in the U.S. and Germany. Finally, it identifies transferable practices that can remedy shortcomings in each country's voice promotion policy.


Subject(s)
Disclosure/ethics , Efficiency, Organizational/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Errors/ethics , Medical Errors/legislation & jurisprudence , Safety Management/legislation & jurisprudence , Communication , Germany , Government Regulation , Humans , National Health Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Quality Assurance, Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Risk Management , Safety Management/ethics , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...