Protecting the public interest while regulating health professionals providing virtual care: A scoping review
Leslie, K.; Myles, S.; Schiller, C. J.; Alraja, A. A.; Adams, T. L.; Nelson, S.
Show abstract
Technology is transforming service delivery in many health professions, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health profession regulators must navigate legal and ethical complexities to facilitate virtual care while upholding their mandate to protect the public interest. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine how the public interest is protected when regulating health professionals who provide virtual care, discuss policy and practice implications of virtual care, and make recommendations for future research. We searched six multidisciplinary databases for academic literature published in English between January 2015 and May 2021. We also searched specific databases and websites for relevant grey literature. Sources were screened in duplicate against specified inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine academic articles and 18 grey literature sources were included. Data from included sources were extracted and descriptively synthesized. We identified five key findings. Most literature did not explicitly focus on the public interest aspects of regulating health professionals who provide virtual care. However, when the public interest was discussed, the dimension of access was emphasized. Criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care, and subnational occupational licensure was viewed as a barrier. The demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed licensure and scope of practice changes. Virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that health profession regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for competent practice. There are indications that the public interest concept is evolving in relation to virtual care as regulators continue to balance public safety, equitable access to services, and economic competitiveness. Non-Technical SummaryTechnology is transforming how many health professionals provide services, particularly with the rapid shift to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these health professionals are accountable to a regulator that sets standards of practice, including for virtual care. These regulators have a mandate to protect the public. We conducted a review to determine whether there was existing evidence or literature about how these regulators were working to protect patients when health professionals were providing virtual care. Most of the literature we found did not explicitly focus on the public interest when discussing how to regulate health professionals who provide virtual care. However, when the public interest was discussed, access to care was emphasized. Criticism in the literature focused on social ideologies driving regulation that may inhibit more widespread use of virtual care, especially as the demand for virtual care during COVID-19 catalyzed regulatory changes. Virtual care introduces new areas of risk, potential harm, and inequity that regulators need to address as technology continues to evolve. Regulators have an essential role in providing clear standards and guidelines around virtual care, including what is required for health professionals to be competent.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Determinants of regulatory compliance in health and social care services: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 95%
- Process of Use of Evidence Products by Frontline Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Staff at the Facility Level in Ghana. 94%
- Wading through Molasses: A qualitative examination of the experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of Australian medical practitioners regarding medical billing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Amortization of Funding Gene Therapies: Making the “Intangibles” Tangible for Patients 92%
- Understanding the influence of leadership, organisation, and policy on delivering an integrated child health and social care service in community settings: A qualitative exploration using the SELFIE framework 92%
- Long-term Public Healthcare Burden Associated with Intimate Partner Violence among Canadian Women: A Cohort Study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Healthcare Consumers’ Perceptions of Incentive-Linked Prescribing: A Scoping Review of Research 94%
- A qualitative study on factors influencing health workers’ uptake of a pilot surgical antibiotic prophylaxis stewardship programme in selected Georgian hospitals 93%
- Advancing the Safe Motherhood Initiative: a qualitative and sentiment analysis of local physician’s perspectives on antibiotic self-medication during pregnancy in a low- and middle-income country 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of introducing interprofessional education concepts on students of various healthcare disciplines in the United Arab Emirates 92%
- Participant perceptions of disability training for health workers: a qualitative study in Ghana 92%
- Medical students' perceptions towards artificial intelligence in education and practice: A multinational, multicenter cross-sectional study 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.