在蛮荒的西部航行:对英国和爱尔兰使用个人BYOD、IM和第三方应用程序的临床通信指南的回顾。

IF 3.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2025-01-06 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2024.1457848
Bernadette John, Ciara Heavin, Anthony Roberts
{"title":"在蛮荒的西部航行:对英国和爱尔兰使用个人BYOD、IM和第三方应用程序的临床通信指南的回顾。","authors":"Bernadette John, Ciara Heavin, Anthony Roberts","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2024.1457848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ubiquity of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) personal smartphones, Instant Messaging (IM), and third-party apps, has made these technologies compelling for efficient communications between clinicians regarding patient care. However, the sensitivity of patient-related information necessitates secure, GDPR compliant modalities that prevent unauthorised access and ensure confidentiality. This scoping review explores existing guidelines, policies, and regulations that advise clinicians in the UK and Ireland on the secure use of these digital communication tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) updated Framework for Scoping Reviews and the PRISMA ScR guidelines, this review examines the literature to identify relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations informing current clinical practice on the use of this technology. Academic databases including OneSearch, Embase, EBSCO, PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched, in addition to hand searches of professional entities' websites, including trade unions, regulators, two national health systems, and several employers. Direct inquiries were made to 69 professional entities via telephone, email, websites, and X (formerly known as Twitter).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 18 papers that broadly recognise the importance of secure communication however, a lack of information on the appropriate selection or configuration of these popular technologies was evident. Most guidelines emphasise general security and data protection standards rather than providing clear actionable recommendations for technology use, thereby leaving a significant gap in technical guidance for clinicians.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is a distinct lack of detailed, specific, consistent technical guidance available to clinicians. This review evidences an urgent requirement for enhanced guidelines that specify the most secure platforms, appropriate features, and configuration to maximise the security and confidentiality of clinical communications. Further research is recommended to develop comprehensive, actionable advice for clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"6 ","pages":"1457848"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11743480/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating the wild west: a review of guidance on clinical communications using personal BYOD, IM and third-party apps in the UK and Ireland.\",\"authors\":\"Bernadette John, Ciara Heavin, Anthony Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdgth.2024.1457848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The ubiquity of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) personal smartphones, Instant Messaging (IM), and third-party apps, has made these technologies compelling for efficient communications between clinicians regarding patient care. However, the sensitivity of patient-related information necessitates secure, GDPR compliant modalities that prevent unauthorised access and ensure confidentiality. This scoping review explores existing guidelines, policies, and regulations that advise clinicians in the UK and Ireland on the secure use of these digital communication tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) updated Framework for Scoping Reviews and the PRISMA ScR guidelines, this review examines the literature to identify relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations informing current clinical practice on the use of this technology. Academic databases including OneSearch, Embase, EBSCO, PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched, in addition to hand searches of professional entities' websites, including trade unions, regulators, two national health systems, and several employers. Direct inquiries were made to 69 professional entities via telephone, email, websites, and X (formerly known as Twitter).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 18 papers that broadly recognise the importance of secure communication however, a lack of information on the appropriate selection or configuration of these popular technologies was evident. Most guidelines emphasise general security and data protection standards rather than providing clear actionable recommendations for technology use, thereby leaving a significant gap in technical guidance for clinicians.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is a distinct lack of detailed, specific, consistent technical guidance available to clinicians. This review evidences an urgent requirement for enhanced guidelines that specify the most secure platforms, appropriate features, and configuration to maximise the security and confidentiality of clinical communications. Further research is recommended to develop comprehensive, actionable advice for clinicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in digital health\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1457848\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11743480/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1457848\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1457848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:自带设备(BYOD)个人智能手机、即时通讯(IM)和第三方应用程序的普及,使得这些技术在临床医生之间就患者护理进行有效沟通方面具有吸引力。然而,患者相关信息的敏感性需要安全、符合GDPR的模式,以防止未经授权的访问并确保机密性。这一范围审查探讨了现有的指导方针,政策和法规,建议临床医生在英国和爱尔兰对这些数字通信工具的安全使用。方法:根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)更新的范围评估框架和PRISMA ScR指南,本综述查阅了文献,以确定当前临床实践中使用该技术的相关指南、政策和法规。我们检索了包括OneSearch、Embase、EBSCO、PubMed、Medline和CINAHL在内的学术数据库,还手工检索了专业实体的网站,包括工会、监管机构、两个国家卫生系统和几个雇主。通过电话、电子邮件、网站和X(以前称为Twitter)向69个专业实体进行了直接查询。结果:审查确定了18篇论文,这些论文广泛认识到安全通信的重要性,然而,显然缺乏关于这些流行技术的适当选择或配置的信息。大多数指南强调一般安全和数据保护标准,而不是为技术使用提供明确的可操作建议,从而在临床医生的技术指导方面留下了重大空白。讨论:临床医生明显缺乏详细、具体、一致的技术指导。这篇综述表明,迫切需要加强指南,规定最安全的平台、适当的功能和配置,以最大限度地提高临床通信的安全性和保密性。建议进一步研究,为临床医生提供全面、可行的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Navigating the wild west: a review of guidance on clinical communications using personal BYOD, IM and third-party apps in the UK and Ireland.

Introduction: The ubiquity of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) personal smartphones, Instant Messaging (IM), and third-party apps, has made these technologies compelling for efficient communications between clinicians regarding patient care. However, the sensitivity of patient-related information necessitates secure, GDPR compliant modalities that prevent unauthorised access and ensure confidentiality. This scoping review explores existing guidelines, policies, and regulations that advise clinicians in the UK and Ireland on the secure use of these digital communication tools.

Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) updated Framework for Scoping Reviews and the PRISMA ScR guidelines, this review examines the literature to identify relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations informing current clinical practice on the use of this technology. Academic databases including OneSearch, Embase, EBSCO, PubMed, Medline, and CINAHL were searched, in addition to hand searches of professional entities' websites, including trade unions, regulators, two national health systems, and several employers. Direct inquiries were made to 69 professional entities via telephone, email, websites, and X (formerly known as Twitter).

Results: The review identified 18 papers that broadly recognise the importance of secure communication however, a lack of information on the appropriate selection or configuration of these popular technologies was evident. Most guidelines emphasise general security and data protection standards rather than providing clear actionable recommendations for technology use, thereby leaving a significant gap in technical guidance for clinicians.

Discussion: There is a distinct lack of detailed, specific, consistent technical guidance available to clinicians. This review evidences an urgent requirement for enhanced guidelines that specify the most secure platforms, appropriate features, and configuration to maximise the security and confidentiality of clinical communications. Further research is recommended to develop comprehensive, actionable advice for clinicians.

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
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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