Curricular priorities for business ethics in medical practice and research: recommendations from Delphi consensus panels

BMC Medical Education

Erin Bakanas¹  Anthony Mikulec³  Kamal Gursahani²  Elena M Kraus⁴  James M DuBois⁵ 

[1]Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, 12 South FDT, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 1402 S. Grand Blvd., Saint Louis, MO 63104, USA

[2]Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 3635 Vista Avenue at Grand Blvd., Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA

[3]Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 3635 Vista Avenue at Grand Blvd., Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA

[4]Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics, Saint Louis University, Salus Center, 3545 Lafayette Ave., Saint Louis, MO 63104-1314, USA

[5]Center for Clinical Research Ethics, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA

关键词: Delphi consensus;    Healthcare industry;    Business in medicine;    Graduate medical education;    Medical education;    Medical ethics;    Clinical ethics;    Professional ethics;    Medical business ethics;   

Others  :  1090210
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-235

 received in 2013-09-16, accepted in 2014-10-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

No published curricula in the area of medical business ethics exist. This is surprising given that physicians wrestle daily with business decisions and that professional associations, the Institute of Medicine, Health and Human Services, Congress, and industry have issued related guidelines over the past 5 years. To fill this gap, the authors aimed (1) to identify the full range of medical business ethics topics that experts consider important to teach, and (2) to establish curricular priorities through expert consensus.

Methods

In spring 2012, the authors conducted an online Delphi survey with two heterogeneous panels of experts recruited in the United States. One panel focused on business ethics in medical practice (n = 14), and 1 focused on business ethics in medical research (n = 12).

Results

Panel 1 generated an initial list of 14 major topics related to business ethics in medical practice, and subsequently rated 6 topics as very important or essential to teach. Panel 2 generated an initial list of 10 major topics related to business ethics in medical research, and subsequently rated 5 as very important or essential. In both domains, the panel strongly recommended addressing problems that conflicts of interest can cause, legal guidelines, and the goals or ideals of the profession.

Conclusions

The Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics at Saint Louis University will use the results of the Delphi panel to develop online curricular resources for each of the highest rated topics.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 DuBois et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Institute of Medicine: The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Washington, DC: National Academices Press; 2010.
• [2]Smith CD: Teaching high-value, cost-conscious care to residents: the alliance for academic internal medicine-American College of Physicians curriculum. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157(4):284-286.
• [3]An A: A business of medicine curriculum for medical students. Med Educ 2005, 39(5):509-510.
• [4]Cohn SM, Baisden C: Business course for residents. ACS 2011, 212(5):916.
• [5]Falvo T, McKniff S, Smolin G, Vega D, Amsterdam JT: The business of emergency medicine: a nonclinical curriculum proposal for emergency medicine residency programs. Acad Emerg Med 2009, 16(9):900-907.
• [6]Taitsman JK: Educating physicians to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(2):102-103.
• [7]DuBois JM, Anderson EE, Carroll K, Gibb T, Kraus E, Rubbelke T, Vasher M: Environmental factors contributing to wrongdoing in medicine: a criterion-based review of studies and cases. Ethics Behav 2012, 22(3):163-188.
• [8]Angell M: Industry-sponsored clinical research: a broken system. J Am Med Assoc 2008, 300(9):1069-1071.
• [9]Campbell EG: Doctors and drug companies–scrutinizing influential relationships. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(18):1796-1797.
• [10]Aldrich N: Medicare fraud estimates: a moving target? Sentinel 2009, 1-4.
• [11]Association of American Medical Colleges: Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subjects research. Washington DC; 2008.
• [12]Association of American Medical Colleges: In The Interest of Patients: Recommendations for Physician Financial Relationships and Clinical Decision Making. Washington DC; 2010.
• [13]Institute of Medicine: Conflict Of Interest In Medical Research, Education, And Practice. Washington DC; 2009.
• [14]Department of Health and Human Services: Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity In Research for Which Phs Funding Is Sought. Washington DC; 2011.
• [15]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS: Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs; transparency reports and reporting of physician ownership or investment interest. Final rule. Fed Regis 2013, 78:9457-9528.
• [16]Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: Code On Interactions With Healthcare Professionals. Washington DC; 2008.
• [17]Weinberger SE, Pereira AG, Iobst WF, Mechaber AJ, Bronze MS: Competency-based education and training in internal medicine. Ann Intern Med 2010, 153(11):751.
• [18]Roberts LW, Green Hammond KA, Geppert CMA, Warner TD: The positive role of professionalism and ethics training in medical education: a comparison of medical student and resident perspectives. Acad Psychiatry 2004, 28(3):170-182.
• [19]Lehmann LS, Kasoff WS, Koch P, Federman D,D: A survey of medical ethics education at U.S. and Canadian medical schools. Acad Med 2004, 79(7):682-689.
• [20]DuBois JM, Burkemper JE: Ethics education in US medical schools: a study of syllabi. Acad Med 2002, 77(5):432-437.
• [21]Anderson E, Kraus E: Re-examining empirical data through the lens of personal narratives on living with conflicts of interest in medicine. Narrat Inq Bioeth 2011, 1(2):91-99.
• [22]DuBois JM: Conflicting interests in research: stories by physicians on how financing affects their work. Narrat Inq Bioeth 2011, 1(2):65-106.
• [23]Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C: Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011, 6(6):e20476.
• [24]Rainhorn J-D, Brudon-Jakobowicz P, Reich MR: Priorities for pharmaceutical policies in developing countries: results of a Delphi survey. Bull World Health Organ 1994, 72(2):257-264.
• [25]DuBois JM, Dueker JM: Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: a Delphi consensus panel report. J Res Adm 2009, 40(1):49-70.
• [26]Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H: Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000, 32(4):1008-1015.
• [27]Okoli C, Pawlowski SD: The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manag 2004, 42(1):15-29.
• [28]DuBois JM, Kraus EM, Mikulec AA, Cruz-Flores S, Bakanas E: A humble task: restoring virtue in an age of conflicted interests. Acad Med 2013, 88(7):924-928.
• [29]Kraus EM, Bakanas E, Gursahani K, DuBois JM: Establishing the need and identifying goals for a curriculum in medical business ethics: a survey of students and residents at two medical centers in Missouri. BMC Res Notes 2014, 7:708. BioMed Central Full Text