Search

This paper outlines the current ethical guidelines for electronic therapy services, and the sufficiency and implications of these guidelines in a culturally diverse population as found in the United States. The paper limits the discussion of ethical deliberations to: what is considered adequate competency to practice mental health therapy electronically; the disclosure and identity verification requirements; confidentiality issues when different social norms exist; the social responsibility of public institutions or individuals; and issues that relate to miscommunication due to different cultural or educational backgrounds. It concludes that since E-Therapy helps to reach underserved populations and significantly reduces costs associated with mental health services, compliance with ethical guidelines must be enforced to benefit from the latest communication technologies. This paper is relevant for various professions related to psychology and psychotherapy, including pastors and pastoral counselors, because various forms of E-therapy are emerging in the 21st century and can serve as resources for 'E-pastoral counseling.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Voice in healthcare is crucial because of its ability to improve organizational performance and prevent medical errors. This paper contends that a comparative analysis of voice promotion in the American and German healthcare industries can strengthen a culture of safety in both countries. It provides a brief introduction to the concept of voice in healthcare, including its impact on safety culture, barriers to voice, and the dual influences of confidentiality and transparency on voice promotion policies. It then examines the theoretical basis, practical workings, and legal aspects of voluntary error reporting and error disclosure as avenues for exercising voice in the U.S. and Germany. Finally, it identifies transferable practices that can remedy shortcomings in each country's voice promotion policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).Objective: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication.Design, Setting, and Participants: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.Main Outcome Measures: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.Results: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).Conclusions: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]