Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Chest ; 159(3): 1076-1083, 2021 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32991873

RESUMEN

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Defensa Civil/organización & administración , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud , Fuerza Laboral en Salud , Salud Pública/tendencias , Asignación de Recursos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/terapia , Gestión del Cambio , Planificación en Desastres , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/métodos , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/normas , Humanos , Colaboración Intersectorial , Maryland/epidemiología , Asignación de Recursos/ética , Asignación de Recursos/organización & administración , SARS-CoV-2 , Triaje/ética , Triaje/organización & administración
3.
J Law Med Ethics ; 41(4): 852-8, Table of Contents, 2013.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24446943

RESUMEN

Adverse events that harm patients can also have a harmful impact on health care workers. A few health care organizations have begun to provide psychological support to these Second Victims, but there is uncertainty over whether these discussions are admissible as evidence in malpractice litigation or disciplinary proceedings. We examined the laws governing the admissibility of these communications in 5 states, and address how the laws might affect participation in programs designed to support health care workers involved in adverse events. We found that privilege is uneven from state-to-state, and also unclear. Ambiguity alone could have a chilling effect on Second Victim programs. We propose legislation to protect volunteer and health care worker communications provided by peer counselors, or failing this, updating of statutory provisions to explicitly include these communications within the ambit of existing protections. Enhancing protections could help to foster an environment of healing for both patients and caregivers.


Asunto(s)
Confidencialidad/legislación & jurisprudencia , Mala Praxis/legislación & jurisprudencia , Errores Médicos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Seguridad del Paciente , Relaciones Profesional-Paciente , Estados Unidos
4.
Am J Med Qual ; 25(3): 186-91, 2010.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20460564

RESUMEN

The root cause analysis (RCA) process is used to investigate adverse events. However, it may not reduce the risk of recurrence as effectively as intended. The authors propose adapting a risk prioritization and reduction process modeled after the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST). The process involves the following: (a) increasing effectiveness of selected interventions by prioritizing each cause/contributing factor based on its role in the current sentinel event as well as in future events; interventions are then selected based on their ability to remediate the root causes/contributing factors and the likelihood of successful implementation; (b) measuring effectiveness of intervention implementation; and ( c) evaluating effectiveness of the interventions by measuring the rates of event recurrence, near misses, contributing factors, mitigating factors, and staff perceptions of risk. Teams that evaluate intervention effectiveness are independent of those that implement the intervention. This framework seeks to improve the RCA process and provide further insights into advancing patient safety.


Asunto(s)
Errores Médicos/prevención & control , Cuerpo Médico de Hospitales/organización & administración , Modelos Organizacionales , Gestión de Riesgos/organización & administración , Administración de la Seguridad/organización & administración , Gestión de la Calidad Total/organización & administración , Humanos , Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...