Suppr超能文献

创新实践中信息收集干预的伦理问题。

Ethics of information-gathering interventions in innovative practice.

机构信息

Center for Clinical and Organizational Ethics, Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, USA.

Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

Intern Med J. 2020 Dec;50(12):1583-1587. doi: 10.1111/imj.15117.

Abstract

Innovative practice involves medical interventions that deviate from standard practice in significant ways. For many patients, innovative practice offers the best chance of successful treatment. Because little is known about most innovative treatments, clinicians who engage in innovative practice might consider including extra procedures, such as scans or blood draws, to gather information about the innovation. Such information-gathering interventions can yield valuable information for modifying the innovation to benefit future patients and for designing scientific studies of the innovation. However, existing guidelines do not say when or whether it is appropriate to add potentially risky information-gathering interventions for these purposes. As a result, clinicians may assume that information-gathering interventions are ethically inappropriate and should not be used in innovative practice. This assumption can lead to seriously negative consequences, such as increasing the likelihood that harmful or ineffective innovations will be adopted and creating new barriers to the development of genuinely beneficial treatments. We argue that health care institutions need to promote the responsible use of information-gathering interventions as an adjunct to innovative practice, and that these interventions are not clinical research and should not be subject to research oversight.

摘要

创新实践涉及到与标准实践有重大差异的医疗干预措施。对于许多患者来说,创新实践提供了成功治疗的最佳机会。由于大多数创新治疗方法知之甚少,因此从事创新实践的临床医生可能会考虑增加额外的程序,如扫描或血液抽取,以收集有关创新的信息。这些信息收集干预措施可以为改进创新以造福未来患者和设计创新的科学研究提供有价值的信息。然而,现有的指南并没有说明何时或是否适合出于这些目的增加潜在风险的信息收集干预措施。因此,临床医生可能会认为信息收集干预措施在伦理上是不适当的,不应在创新实践中使用。这种假设可能会导致严重的负面后果,例如增加采用有害或无效创新的可能性,并为真正有益的治疗方法的发展制造新的障碍。我们认为,医疗机构需要促进负责任地使用信息收集干预措施作为创新实践的辅助手段,并且这些干预措施不属于临床研究,不应受到研究监督。

相似文献

2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
5
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 352: Innovative practice: ethical guidelines.
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1589-95. doi: 10.1097/00006250-200612000-00056.
6
10
Clinical innovation ethics frameworks: A systematic narrative review.临床创新伦理框架:系统叙事综述。
Health Policy. 2023 Mar;129:104706. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104706. Epub 2023 Jan 5.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

7
Innovative reproductive technologies: risks and responsibilities.创新性生殖技术:风险与责任。
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1604-8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der112. Epub 2011 Apr 18.
8
On the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery.论外科手术中的抗菌原则
Br Med J. 1867 Sep 21;2(351):246-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.351.246.
10
Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.外科创新的评估与阶段
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1089-96. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61083-7.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验