Last week the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) has published a position paper entitled
"Challenges in ethics, best practices and supervision of HIT vendors, customers and patients: a report an AMIA special task force."The paper seems a bright light on the alleged contracting practices of the EHR vendors and their infamous "harmless keeping" clauses which means the EPA manufacturer from any liability as a result of software defects, including liability for personal injury and death to entschädigen.Was in plain English is, if a software "Bug" or incompetence causes an adverse event, and if you (or your hospital) with a malpractice suit face the EPA provider named a co-accused in this suit be and not turn around and bring suit against the seller for failure to deliver a properly functioning product.
The AMIA claim the existence of contractual clauses, the prevention of users and buyers from public reporting, paper or even mention bugs, including those that could compromise patient safety. The AMIA report goes to the ethics of both buyers and sellers, participation in such treaties with emphasis on the EPA challenge provider primary responsibility to the shareholders and the bottom line in General.
As expected, the authors call Government Regulation HIT products and processes and suggest that of course, a shared responsibility between vendors and customers should reflect contracts, and while public reporting allows (for certain kinds of software defective or should be required), should be user intellectual property of the seller aware sein.Der interesting part of the report that is rather novel recommendation for ethics education under the suppliers and buyers. Presumably, vendors and their customers the difference between right and wrong informed must be and must be informed that the placement of corporate earnings or personal comfort prior to patient safety is indeed wrong and therefore unethical. From the Windows 7 phone commercials, borrow "Really?"
Contracts with terms such as the above examples of typical HM of goods and services that try to make a "good thing" and buyer's job is to negotiate the terms down, what would a "good deal" for the buyer with the end result will be somewhere in the middle. Ethical considerations in the game would come only when the vendor knowingly proposes, were to sell patients, harms the buyer knowingly committed itself, this information to keep in return for financial concessions from suppliers, and some more vocal opponents will HIT now argue that this is indeed the case. But even then I doubt seriously that such agreements to ignore patient safety for pure financial gain a result of vendors and their customers not to know the difference between right and wrong or missing a thorough training in the field which is ethics. Nothing stops this blatantly predatory behavior shortly from legislation and regulation if it in fact exists, and I doubt that it does.
I would like to submit, there is a need for education but very different nature indeed. Whether the seller and the buyer keep agreed on issues or not, are the faults or defects, damage potential patients can the corporate totem pole creating software developers on the bottom. These are not unethical people and have nothing to gain by cutting corners and endanger people's lives. But just as doctors sometimes make mistakes, programmers do and what here most frustrating is that you even have to make a mistake, to create a clear and present danger in the software.These mostly young and healthy professionals know very little about the practice of medicine and in many cases have no overarching understanding product help to build.Develop expert at the small piece were commissioned, but a few may have dire consequences, the greater the shop and more geographically dispersed by incorrectly sorted list of drugs, for example verursacht.Je insight about, the problem is the greater.It is tempting to argue that EHRs should be designed and built by clinicians as VistA was allegedly here.While clinicians should have a lot in design and in particular the acceptance testing of EHRs entrance, it is not economically (or social), hundreds of doctors sitting in little Cubbies, writing code for a living.Instead EHR vendors should participate in fact, in the training of their employees, including the most junior developers on how medicine practiced running.make don't become experts of Diagnosticians, but it would be great if medical software developers would be required to rotations, implementation and support of the software at customer sites, preferably before allowing take to touch the code (similar to inhabitants).
Success is due to the small things right at tun.zwar there are some ethical captains of industry are involved in questionable contracting practices, the armies of people to do the actual work and create the actual products and large able tell right from wrong are questioned and need no lectures for Ethik.Was you need is to force your training to invest in their employer, you are in the position for someone properly tun.Und I have seen the millions of little things, to know that you really, really want to learn enough young software developers and do the right thing.
Very interessant.Menschen should read this too:
http://www.DRI.org/articles/MedicalLiability/FTD-1007-Brouillard.PDF
I would think this blanket indemnity clauses in court finally be null and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment