研究伦理中共同成员的责任

J. Miola
{"title":"研究伦理中共同成员的责任","authors":"J. Miola","doi":"10.1017/9781108649247.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The suggestion to use medical information for the purposes of health service research is not new. But the British government’s latest attempt was particularly ham-fisted. ‘Care.data’ was an initiative that sought to ‘bring together health and social care information from different healthcare settings, such as GP practices, hospitals and care homes, in order to see what’s working really well in the NHS – and what we could [improve]’. 1 Rather than using information without consent, the idea was to have an opt-out rather than opt-in system. In many ways, it was a laudable goal. However, the programme had to be scrapped following a critical report by Dame Fiona Caldicott. 2 Caldicott did not find fault with the scheme’s philosophy, noting that information sharing was vital to create an efficient healthcare system and to support research, but she did find that the opt-out system needed to be strengthened and that, crucially, the public had yet to be convinced of the case for data sharing.","PeriodicalId":348909,"journal":{"name":"Beyond Autonomy","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Duties of Shared Membership in Research Ethics\",\"authors\":\"J. Miola\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/9781108649247.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The suggestion to use medical information for the purposes of health service research is not new. But the British government’s latest attempt was particularly ham-fisted. ‘Care.data’ was an initiative that sought to ‘bring together health and social care information from different healthcare settings, such as GP practices, hospitals and care homes, in order to see what’s working really well in the NHS – and what we could [improve]’. 1 Rather than using information without consent, the idea was to have an opt-out rather than opt-in system. In many ways, it was a laudable goal. However, the programme had to be scrapped following a critical report by Dame Fiona Caldicott. 2 Caldicott did not find fault with the scheme’s philosophy, noting that information sharing was vital to create an efficient healthcare system and to support research, but she did find that the opt-out system needed to be strengthened and that, crucially, the public had yet to be convinced of the case for data sharing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Beyond Autonomy\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Beyond Autonomy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649247.010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beyond Autonomy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108649247.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

将医学信息用于卫生服务研究的建议并不新鲜。但英国政府最近的尝试尤其笨拙。的照顾。“data”是一项倡议,旨在“汇集来自不同医疗机构的健康和社会保健信息,如全科医生、医院和养老院,以便了解NHS的哪些方面工作得很好,以及我们可以(改进)哪些方面”。比起未经同意使用信息,我们的想法是建立一个选择退出而不是选择加入的系统。从很多方面来说,这是一个值得称赞的目标。然而,在菲奥娜·卡尔迪科特夫人发表了一份批评报告后,该计划不得不被取消。2卡尔迪科特并没有发现该计划的理念有问题,她指出,信息共享对于创建一个高效的医疗保健系统和支持研究至关重要,但她确实发现,选择退出系统需要加强,而且,至关重要的是,公众还没有被数据共享的理由所说服。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Duties of Shared Membership in Research Ethics
The suggestion to use medical information for the purposes of health service research is not new. But the British government’s latest attempt was particularly ham-fisted. ‘Care.data’ was an initiative that sought to ‘bring together health and social care information from different healthcare settings, such as GP practices, hospitals and care homes, in order to see what’s working really well in the NHS – and what we could [improve]’. 1 Rather than using information without consent, the idea was to have an opt-out rather than opt-in system. In many ways, it was a laudable goal. However, the programme had to be scrapped following a critical report by Dame Fiona Caldicott. 2 Caldicott did not find fault with the scheme’s philosophy, noting that information sharing was vital to create an efficient healthcare system and to support research, but she did find that the opt-out system needed to be strengthened and that, crucially, the public had yet to be convinced of the case for data sharing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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