An Analog-to-Digital Converter Immunity Modelling based on a Stochastic Approach

This paper proposes a methodology to model an electronic board according to a bottom-up approach. This method is applied to build the model of a synchronous buck DC-DC converter board for conducted emission prediction purpose. The different steps to select the model terminals and the construction of the component and PCB interconnect models are described

Multiport ICIM-CI modeling approach applied to a bandgap voltage reference

This paper presents a modelling approach to build a multiport ICIM-CI model describing the impact of RF disturbances injection through different pins of a micro-power bandgap reference. The component chosen for this study is a commercial one. It combines high accuracy and low drift with low supply current and small package

Protecting Patients from Physicians Who Inflict Harm: New Legal Resources for State Medical Boards

State medical boards (SMBs) protect the public by ensuring that physicians uphold appropriate standards of care and ethical practice. Despite this clear purpose, egregious types of wrongdoing by physicians are alarmingly frequent, harmful, and under-reported. Even when egregious wrongdoing is reported to SMBs, it is unclear why SMBs sometimes fail to promptly remove seriously offending physicians from practice. Legal and policy tools that are targeted, well-informed, and actionable are urgently needed to help SMBs more effectively protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.Past reviews of SMB performance have identified features of SMBs associated with higher rates of severe disciplinary actions against physicians, including political and professional independence and adequate funding and staffing. However, there has been little attention paid to elements of the state level legal framework that governs SMB licensing and disciplinary function, or what legal or policy tools would make SMBs more effective at protecting patients in serious cases.This Article offers solutions in the form of model language with commentary for five high-impact statutory provisions that address board composition and function, reporting to the board, and adjudication of disciplinary matters. It brings together consensus recommendations from an expert panel, the results of legal mapping of relevant state laws, and original legal and policy analysis. The model provisions and commentary are intended to serve as a new resource for SMBs, state legislatures, and other policymakers to encourage and support examination of existing medical practice acts to improve SMB function and better protect patients from harmful physicians. Note:Funding Information: The research was supported by a grant from the Greenwall Foundation..Declaration of Interests: None to declare

Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB Members, and data repository curators

Data sharing maximizes the value of data, which is time and resource intensive to collect. Major funding bodies in the United States (US), like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), require data sharing and researchers frequently share de-identified quantitative data. In contrast, qualitative data are rarely shared in the US but the increasing trend towards data sharing and open science suggest this may be required in future. Qualitative methods are often used to explore sensitive health topics raising unique ethical challenges regarding protecting confidentiality while maintaining enough contextual detail for secondary analyses. Here, we report findings from semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 data repository curators, 30 qualitative researchers, and 30 IRB staff members to explore their experience and knowledge of QDS. Our findings indicate that all stakeholder groups lack preparedness for QDS. Researchers are the least knowledgeable and are often unfamiliar with the concept of sharing qualitative data in a repository. Curators are highly supportive of QDS, but not all have experienced curating qualitative data sets and indicated they would like guidance and standards specific to QDS. IRB members lack familiarity with QDS although they support it as long as proper legal and regulatory procedures are followed. IRB members and data curators are not prepared to advise researchers on legal and regulatory matters, potentially leaving researchers who have the least knowledge with no guidance. Ethical and productive QDS will require overcoming barriers, creating standards, and changing long held practices among all stakeholder groups

Development of a resource guide to help patients receive appropriate care

After 10 years researching physician wrongdoing (i.e., sexual violations, improper prescribing, and unnecessary procedures), we developed a resource guide to help patients receive appropriate care and respond to inappropriate care. We gathered evaluative patient feedback, engaged physicians, and disseminated the guide. It is available at beforeyourvisit.org

Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers

Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations

Modèle ICIM-CI multiports d'une référence de tension

Cet article présente la méthodologie de construction du modèle d’immunité conduite (ICIM-CI) d’une référence de tension commerciale. Il s’agit d’un modèle multiport qui prend en compte les perturbations injectées à travers les différents ports du circuit sous test

What Can State Medical Boards Do to Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team’s larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians

What can state medical boards do to effectively address serious ethical violations?

State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team\u27s larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing