Search

Telehealth refers to the use of telecommunication devices and other forms of technology to provide services outside of the traditional in-person health care delivery system. Growth in the use of telehealth creates new challenges and opportunities for implementation in clinical practice. The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) assembled an expert group to develop a white paper to examine telehealth innovation in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). The resultant white paper summarizes how telehealth is best used in the field of PM&R while highlighting current knowledge deficits and technological limitations. The report identifies new and transformative opportunities for PM&R to advance translational research related to telehealth and enhance patient care., (© 2023 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

The debate on abortion has not yet found a clear solution. In fact, there is still discussion about what the limits of this procedure should be. This uncertainty is related to the lack of a clear definition of human life: when can the product of conception be defined as a human being with full medical-legal rights? Based on the answer to this question, the various world governments have drafted more or less restrictive laws regulating abortion. Since May 2019, some American states have considerably restricted the possibility of carrying out abortion on their territory. Alabama has practically banned abortion in any circumstance (including incest and rape). Obviously, these restrictive policies have had a significant impact on the social, bioethical and legal debate, concerning abortion, globally. This paper analyses the implications of these policies with a focus on women's fundamental rights: the right to health and the right to self-determination.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries around the world are considering whether and how to provide liability protection to front-line healthcare staff. The guiding principle of liability protection for physicians and others is to ensure that, in a serious emergency situation, health professionals can devote themselves exclusively to their work and to patient care, without the fear of future claims for unforeseeable, but above all unavoidable, injury, loss and damage caused by their conduct. Great care is needed to balance the interests and rights of all those involved. Liability protection could have risky consequences with the final result that doctors will not be protected, but institutions such as health facilities will be even if they were in fact responsible for foreseeable and avoidable damage.

Restraint and seclusion (R&S) measures in psychiatric settings are applied worldwide, despite poor scientific evidence to back up their effectiveness. The medical, ethical and medico-legal implications of coercive interventions are broad-ranging and multifaceted. The review aims to shed a light on the most relevant and meaningful standards that have been laid out by international treaties, supranational institutions (United Nations, Council of Europe, World Health Organization), scientific institutions (American Medical Association, Australian Department of Health), legislative bodies and courts of law. Several court cases are herein expounded upon, with a close focus on meaningful analysis, decisions and conclusions that have laid the groundwork for a different, more restrictive and more clearly defined approach towards R&S imposed upon psychiatric patients. It is reasonable to assume that changing norms, civil rights enforcement, court rulings and new therapeutic options have influenced the use of R&S to such an extent that such measures are among the most strictly regulated in psychiatric practice; health care providers should abide by a strict set of cautionary rules when making the decision to resort to R&S, which must never be put in place as a substitute for patient-centered therapeutic planning. Case law shows that R&S should only be weighed in terms of their effectiveness towards therapeutic goals. Being able to prove that R&S was employed as part of a therapeutic path rather than used to maintain order or to exact punishment may go a long way towards shielding operators against negligence lawsuits and litigation.

A national random-sample survey of 4011 primary care physicians was conducted to determine the extent to which they are providing HIV prevention and clinical services, and to learn what characteristics and attitudes might impede the provision of such services. Physicians were asked about their history-taking practices for new adult and adolescent patients, including asking about the use of illicit drugs (injection and noninjection), the number of sexual partners, use of condoms and contraceptives, past episodes of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), sexual orientation, and sexual contact with partner(s) at high risk for HIV. A preliminary analysis was conducted and reported earlier by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), focusing on the HIV-prevention services being provided by primary care physicians. This report provides additional analyses from this study, focusing on characteristics and attitudes that may prevent physicians from providing these services. Male physicians and the physicians' belief that patients would be offended if asked questions about their sex behaviors were strongly predictive of not asking new patients about their sex and drug behaviors. The physician's specialty was also a strong predictor-OB/GYNs were predictive of asking these questions and GP/FPs were predictive of not asking the questions. Physicians who indicated that a majority of their patients were white were less likely to report asking patients about their sex and drug behaviors. The authors conclude that a substantial number of primary care physicians are missing important opportunities to prevent HIV transmission by not adequately assessing patients' risks and not providing necessary risk-reduction counseling during their physician-patient encounters. Physician's attitudes and beliefs about their patients, as well as their level of experience with HIV, may help to explain these observations.