The quality case for information technology in healthcare

BACKGROUND: As described in the Institute of Medicine's Crossing the Quality Chasm report, the quality of health care in the U.S. today leaves much to be desired. DISCUSSION: One major opportunity for improving quality relates to increasing the use of information technology, or IT. Health care organizations currently invest less in IT than in any other information-intensive industry, and not surprisingly current systems are relatively primitive, compared with industries such as banking or aviation. Nonetheless, a number of organizations have demonstrated that quality can be substantially improved in a variety of ways if IT use is increased in ways that improve care. Specifically, computerization of processes that are error-prone and computerized decision support may substantially improve both efficiency and quality, as well as dramatically facilitate quality measurement. This report discusses the current levels of IT and quality in health care, how quality improvement and management are currently done, the evidence that more IT might be helpful, a vision of the future, and the barriers to getting there. SUMMARY: This report suggests that there are five key policy domains that need to be addressed: standards, incentives, security and confidentiality, professional involvement, and research, with financial incentives representing the single most important lever

Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice

A rich and growing body of literature has emerged on ethics in epidemiologic research and public health practice. Recent articles have included conceptual frameworks of public health ethics and overviews of historical developments in the field. Several important topics in public health ethics have also been highlighted. Attention to ethical issues can facilitate the effective planning, implementation, and growth of a variety of public health programs and research activities. Public health ethics is consistent with the prevention orientation of public health. Ethical concerns can be anticipated or identified early and effectively addressed through careful analysis and consultation

Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.</p

An ethics training specific for European public health

Training in public health ethics is not at the core of public health programmes in Europe. The fruitful progress of the United States could stimulate the European schools of public health and other academic institutions to develop specifically European teaching programmes for ethics that embrace both transatlantic innovations and some adaptations based on the evolution of moral values in European societies. This paper reviews the arguments for a European public health ethics curriculum and recommends the main features of such a programme. Europe shares common values and, above all, the three major ethical principles that were socially and politically crystallized by the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. Fraternity, otherwise known as solidarity, although rarely mentioned in the literature on ethical issues, is the moral value that best defines the European concept of public health expressed as a common good, mutual aid, and a collective or shared responsibility for health of the population. Specific political motivations were responsible for the origin of European health systems and for current policy proposals led by the European Union, such as Europe’s commitments, at least in theory, to: reduce social inequities in health and to develop the health in all policies approach. These and other initiatives, albeit not exclusively European, have political and legal repercussions that pose unique ethical challenges. Europe combines homogeneity in social determinants of health with heterogeneity in public health approaches and interventions. It is therefore necessary to develop training in ethics and good government for all public health workers in Europe, especially since a large segment of the population’s health depends on actions and decisions adopted by the European Commission and its regulatory agencies as well as for non EU European Region countries. Based on these arguments, the paper concludes with several recommendations for a common nucleus for the ethics curriculum in Europe