Search

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd People with dementia are under-represented in clinical research, in part due to the ethical and legal complexities of involving people in studies who may lack capacity to consent. Excluding this population from research limits the evidence to inform care. The attitudes and practices of researchers are key to the inclusion of people with dementia in research, however, there are few empirical studies on researchers' perspectives in this area. A cross-sectional study involved researchers in Australia who had experience in the ethical aspects of conducting dementia-related studies with human participants (n = 70). Data were collected via an online survey from November 2017 to January 2018. Most respondents (97%) agreed with the importance of including people at all stages of dementia in research, yet around three-quarters of respondents perceived ethical and legal rules and processes as unduly restrictive or time-consuming. Researchers reported variable practices in assessing prospective participants' capacity to consent to their studies. Various tools are used for this purpose, ranging from tools designed for research (eg, MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research) to more general cognitive function screens (eg, Mini Mental State Exam). Few respondents (14%) routinely exclude people from studies who are unable to give their own consent, but instead seek permission from proxy decision-makers, such as legally appointed guardians or family carers. Respondents reported positive and negative outcomes of ethics review processes. Positive outcomes included strengthening the protections for participants with cognitive impairment while negative outcomes included delays and inconsistent decisions from different ethics committees. The findings suggest a need for improved strategies in the research context to assess and enhance the decision-making capacity of people with dementia to support appropriate opportunities for inclusion. Education for ethics committees, proxy decision-makers and other gatekeepers is also needed to reduce barriers to participation in research.

The provision of unnecessary healthcare is a serious problem in Australia and involves two key legal issues. First, doctors’ fear of litigation drives defensive practices – ordering tests and procedures, making referrals, and prescribing drugs to reduce perceived legal risks, rather than to advance patient care. Second, suboptimal communication and decision making processes undermine a patient’s right to make informed healthcare choices. This article critically analyses these problems and proposes solutions. An extensive body of medico-legal literature is synthesised to highlight gaps between legal requirements and what happens in practice. Negligence case law is discussed to clarify legal principles and show that courts discourage defensive practice. Finally, the article presents practical strategies to enhance communication and shared decision making in the clinical encounter.

Interprofessional collaboration in healthcare describes a model of practice where multiple health professionals work together in a team-based approach to patient care. A growing body of literature demonstrates that interprofessional collaboration advances healthcare quality and safety, improves patient outcomes and experiences of care, and promotes job satisfaction among health professionals. Governments and health organisations across Canada are working to advance interprofessional healthcare delivery. This paper examines the importance of law in supporting a shift to interprofessional collaboration in Canadian healthcare and discusses two key aspects of the legal context in which health practitioners work. First, the paper discusses trends in the legal regulation of health professions in Canada, including law reform initiatives aimed at promoting collaborative practice and expanding scopes of practice to break down the historically siloed approach to healthcare delivery. Second, the papers examines civil liability rules that courts apply when allegations of negligence are made against health care providers working in team-based situations. New legislative models that provide for expanded and overlapping scopes of practice, and which introduce new professional roles into the health workforce, may raise legal concerns regarding responsibility for patient care and outcomes. The paper illustrates how legal innovations, such as new models of health profession regulation, and legal adaptability, through judicial understanding of the modern context of health service delivery, are important to the advancement of interprofessional collaboration in Canadian healthcare.

Canadian regulations have different rules for foods and natural health products (NHPs) regarding allowable health claims, requirements for use in clinical trials and good manufacturing standards and labeling requirements. How these rules apply to products at the food–NHP interface is often unclear. This paper describes the regulatory environment and explores two product examples – probiotic yogurt and green tea – to illustrate the issue. In addition, results from a qualitative study of NHP/food researchers highlights the confusion and frustration of those working in the field. Interim agreements between the NHP and Foods Directorate of Health Canada regarding products reviews provide a temporary response but regulatory amendments, accompanied by clear guidance to stakeholders, are needed.