Regulating professional ethics in a context of technological change.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Tracey L Adams, Kathleen Leslie, Sophia Myles, Bruna Moraes
{"title":"Regulating professional ethics in a context of technological change.","authors":"Tracey L Adams, Kathleen Leslie, Sophia Myles, Bruna Moraes","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01140-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Technological change is impacting the work of health professionals, especially with recent developments in artificial intelligence. Research has raised many ethical considerations respecting clinical applications of artificial intelligence, and it has identified a role for professional regulation in helping to guide practitioners in the ethical use of technology; however, regulation in this area has been slow to develop. This study seeks to identify the challenges that health professionals face in the context of technological change, and whether regulators' codes of ethics and guidance are sufficient to help workers navigate these changes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted mixed methods research in Ontario, Canada, using qualitative content analysis of regulators' codes of ethics and practice guidance (26 regulators, 63 documents analysed), interviews with 7 representatives from 5 health profession regulatory bodies, and focus groups with 17 healthcare practitioners across 5 professions in the province. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data and answer our core research questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that codes of ethics focus more on general principles and managing practitioners' relationships with clients/patients; hence, it is not clear that these documents can successfully guide professional practice in a context of rapid technological change. Practitioners and regulatory body staff express ambivalence and uncertainty about regulators' roles in regulating technology use. In some instances, health professionals experience conflict between the expectations of their regulator and their employer. These gaps and conflicts leave some professionals uncertain about how to practice ethically in a digital age.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a need for more guidance and regulation in this area, not only for practitioners, but with respect to the application of technology within the environments in which health professionals work.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11603855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01140-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Technological change is impacting the work of health professionals, especially with recent developments in artificial intelligence. Research has raised many ethical considerations respecting clinical applications of artificial intelligence, and it has identified a role for professional regulation in helping to guide practitioners in the ethical use of technology; however, regulation in this area has been slow to develop. This study seeks to identify the challenges that health professionals face in the context of technological change, and whether regulators' codes of ethics and guidance are sufficient to help workers navigate these changes.

Methods: We conducted mixed methods research in Ontario, Canada, using qualitative content analysis of regulators' codes of ethics and practice guidance (26 regulators, 63 documents analysed), interviews with 7 representatives from 5 health profession regulatory bodies, and focus groups with 17 healthcare practitioners across 5 professions in the province. We used thematic analysis to analyse the data and answer our core research questions.

Results: We find that codes of ethics focus more on general principles and managing practitioners' relationships with clients/patients; hence, it is not clear that these documents can successfully guide professional practice in a context of rapid technological change. Practitioners and regulatory body staff express ambivalence and uncertainty about regulators' roles in regulating technology use. In some instances, health professionals experience conflict between the expectations of their regulator and their employer. These gaps and conflicts leave some professionals uncertain about how to practice ethically in a digital age.

Conclusions: There is a need for more guidance and regulation in this area, not only for practitioners, but with respect to the application of technology within the environments in which health professionals work.

在技术变革的背景下规范职业道德。
背景:技术变革正在影响医疗专业人员的工作,尤其是人工智能的最新发展。研究提出了许多有关人工智能临床应用的伦理问题,并确定了专业监管在帮助指导从业人员合乎伦理地使用技术方面的作用;然而,该领域的监管发展缓慢。本研究旨在确定卫生专业人员在技术变革背景下面临的挑战,以及监管机构的道德规范和指导是否足以帮助从业人员驾驭这些变革:我们在加拿大安大略省开展了混合方法研究,对监管机构的道德规范和实践指南(26 家监管机构,分析了 63 份文件)进行了定性内容分析,对来自 5 个医疗专业监管机构的 7 名代表进行了访谈,并对该省 5 个专业的 17 名医疗从业人员进行了焦点小组讨论。我们采用主题分析法对数据进行了分析,并回答了我们的核心研究问题:我们发现,道德规范更侧重于一般原则和管理从业人员与客户/患者的关系;因此,在技术快速变化的背景下,这些文件能否成功指导专业实践并不明确。从业人员和监管机构工作人员对监管机构在监管技术使用方面的作用表示矛盾和不确定。在某些情况下,医疗专业人员会遇到监管机构的期望与其雇主的期望之间的冲突。这些差距和冲突让一些专业人员不确定如何在数字时代以合乎道德的方式执业:结论:在这一领域需要更多的指导和监管,不仅是对从业人员,而且对卫生专业人员工作环境中的技术应用也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信