Browsing by keyword "Advisory Committees"
Now showing items 1-4 of 4
-
Clinical prevention and population health: curriculum framework for health professionsThe Clinical Prevention and Population Health Curriculum Framework is the initial product of the Healthy People Curriculum Task Force convened by the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Academic Health Centers. The Task Force includes representatives of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, nursing and nurse practitioners, dentistry, pharmacy, and physician assistants. The Task Force aims to accomplish the Healthy People 2010 goal of increasing the prevention content of clinical health professional education. The Curriculum Framework provides a structure for organizing curriculum, monitoring curriculum, and communicating within and among professions. The Framework contains four components: evidence base for practice, clinical preventive services-health promotion, health systems and health policy, and community aspects of practice. The full Framework includes 19 domains. The title "Clinical Prevention and Population Health" has been carefully chosen to include both individual- and population-oriented prevention efforts. It is recommended that all participating clinical health professions use this title when referring to this area of curriculum. The Task Force recommends that each profession systematically determine whether appropriate items in the Curriculum Framework are included in its standardized examinations for licensure and certification and for program accreditation.
-
NIH Roundtable on Opportunities to Advance Research on Neurologic and Psychiatric EmergenciesSTUDY OBJECTIVE: The Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System (2003) identified a need to enhance the research base for emergency care. As a result, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine was formed to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. Members of the NIH Task Force and academic leaders in emergency care participated in 3 Roundtable discussions to prioritize current opportunities for enhancing and conducting emergency care research. We identify key research questions essential to advancing the science of emergency care and discuss the barriers and strategies to advance research by exploring the collaboration between NIH and the emergency care community. METHODS: Experts from emergency medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and public health assembled to review critical areas in need of investigation, current gaps in knowledge, barriers, and opportunities. Neurologic emergencies included cerebral resuscitation, pain, stroke, syncope, traumatic brain injury, and pregnancy. Mental health topics included suicide, agitation and delirium, substances, posttraumatic stress, violence, and bereavement. RESULTS: Presentations and group discussion firmly established the need for translational research to bring basic science concepts into the clinical arena. A coordinated continuum of the health care system that ensures rapid identification and stabilization and extends through discharge is necessary to maximize overall patient outcomes. There is a paucity of well-designed, focused research on diagnostic testing, clinical decisionmaking, and treatments in the emergency setting. Barriers include the limited number of experienced researchers in emergency medicine, limited dedicated research funding, and difficulties of conducting research in chaotic emergency environments stressed by crowding and limited resources. Several themes emerged during the course of the roundtable discussion, including the need for development of (1) a research infrastructure for the rapid identification, consent, and tracking of research subjects that incorporates innovative informatics technologies, essential for future research; (2) diagnostic strategies and tools necessary to understand key populations and the process of medical decisionmaking, including the investigation of the pathobiology of symptoms and symptom-oriented therapies; (3) collaborative research networks to provide unique opportunities to form partnerships, leverage patient cohorts and clinical and financial resources, and share data; (4) formal research training programs integral for creating new knowledge and advancing the science and practice of emergency medicine; and (5) recognition that emergency care is part of an integrated system from emergency medical services dispatch to discharge. The NIH Roundtable "Opportunities to Advance Research on Neurological and Psychiatric Emergencies" created a framework to guide future emergency medicine-based research initiatives. CONCLUSION: Emergency departments provide the portal of access to the health care system for most patients with acute neurologic and psychiatric illness. Emergency physicians and colleagues are primed to investigate neurologic and psychiatric emergencies that will directly improve the delivery of care and patient outcomes.
-
Physician-assisted suicide and the Supreme Court: the Washington and Vacco verdictsIn June 1997, the Supreme Court decided that statutes proscribing physicians from providing lethal medication for use by competent, terminally ill patients do not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The Court returned the question of physician-assisted suicide to the states, but did not foreclose future review of state laws that may be too restrictive of care at the end of life. The conceptual distinctions between assisted suicide, refusal of life-sustaining treatment, and administration of pain medication to terminally ill patients were endorsed as important guideposts for future analyses.
-
Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidenceThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) seeks to provide reliable and accurate evidence-based recommendations to primary care clinicians. However, clinicians indicate frustration with the lack of guidance provided by the USPSTF when the evidence is insufficient to make a recommendation. This article describes a new USPSTF plan to commission its Evidence-based Practice Centers to collect information in 4 domains pertinent to clinical decisions about prevention and to report this information routinely. The 4 domains are potential preventable burden, potential harm of the intervention, costs (both monetary and opportunity), and current practice. The process and rationale used to select these domains are presented, along with examples of how clinicians might use the information to guide clinical decision making when evidence is insufficient.