Ministry of Ethics.co.uk is a non-commercial student-run project aiming to bring learning about Medical Ethics and Law (MEL) into the Web 2.0 era. The website has revision notes, MCQs & EMQs, case videos and scenarios, and allows discussions with other students and professors or lecturers from across the UK and beyond. The website is the perfect revision resource for medical students, clinical students and juniors doctors to learn more about MEL. Doctors are so much more than walking books of facts; they are faced with ethically and legally challenging situations throughout their professional lives. Medical ethics education helps make students aware of the situations that they will face in the clinical setting and suggests appropriate ways of approaching them. In the long term, it aids the development of moral and ethical reasoning that will allow student doctors to understand other people's views, helping them to become more empathetic and caring clinicians. Since it's creation, our website has won a number of prizes including: - Winning Presentation at the 2011 Fifth Conference on Medical Ethics and Law - 2011 BMA Book Awards Highly Commended - 2011 BMJ onExamination Best National E-Learning Resource Prize We hope you enjoy looking at our site and in particular the case scenarios and interactive question bank.
over 5 years ago
Ministry of Ethics.co.uk is a non-commercial student-run project aiming to bring learning about Medical Ethics and Law (MEL) into the Web 2.0 era. The website has revision notes, MCQs & EMQs, case videos and scenarios, and allows discussions with other students and professors or lecturers from across the UK and beyond. The website is the perfect revision resource for medical students, clinical students and juniors doctors to learn more about MEL. Doctors are so much more than walking books of facts; they are faced with ethically and legally challenging situations throughout their professional lives. Medical ethics education helps make students aware of the situations that they will face in the clinical setting and suggests appropriate ways of approaching them. In the long term, it aids the development of moral and ethical reasoning that will allow student doctors to understand other people's views, helping them to become more empathetic and caring clinicians. Since it's creation, our website has won a number of prizes including: - Winning Presentation at the 2011 Fifth Conference on Medical Ethics and Law, 2011 BMA Book Awards Highly Commended, 2011 BMJ onExamination Best National E-Learning Resource Prize. We hope you enjoy looking at our site and in particular the case scenarios and interactive question bank.
over 5 years ago
Does the NHS really need saving? Your first question may be ‘does the NHS really need saving?’, and I would have to answer with an emphatic ‘Yes’. April this year sees the official start of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), the key component of The Health and Social Care Act, one of the biggest changes the NHS has seen. Amongst other things these organisations are tasked with saving the NHS £20 billion in the next 3 years by means of ‘efficiency changes’, despite the Institute of Fiscal Studies saying that the NHS needs to be spending £20 billion more each year by 2020. A daunting task but even more so in the light of the recently published Francis Report, where failings at Stafford Hospital have highlighted the need for compassionate patient care to be at the centre of all decisions. All of this has to be achieved in the largest publically funded health service in the world, which employs 1.7 million staff and serves more than 62 million people, with an annual budget of £106 billion (2011/12). So is it the solution? Clearly technology cannot be the only solution to this problem but I believe technology is pivotal in achieving the ‘efficiency changes’ desired. This might be direct use of technology to improve efficiency or may indirectly provide the intelligence that can drive non-technology based efficiencies; and if technology can be used to save clinicians time this can be reinvested into improving patient care. The NHS already has or is working on a number of national scale IT projects that could bring efficiency savings such as choose and book, electronic prescription service and map of medicine to name but a few. Newer and more localised projects include telehealth, clinical decision tools, remote working, the use of social media and real time patient data analysis. Yet many of these ideas, though new to the NHS, have been employed in business for many years. The NHS needs to catch up and then to further innovate. We need clinicians, managers and IT developers to work together if we are to be successful. Such change is not without its challenges and the size and complexity of the NHS makes implementation of change difficult. Patient safety and confidentiality has to be paramount but these create practical and technical barriers to development. I have just completed Connecting for Health’s Clinical Safety Training and there are some formidable hurdles to development and implementation of new IT systems in the NHS (ISB0129 and ISB0160). Procurement in the NHS is a beast of its own that I wouldn’t claim to understand but the processes are complex potentially making it difficult for small developers. The necessity of financial savings means the best solutions are not always chosen, even though that can be false economy in the long run. Yet we must not let these barriers stop us from seeking to employ technology for the good of clinicians and patients. We must not let them stifle innovation or be frustrated by what can be a slow process at times. The NHS recognises some of these issues and is working to try to help small businesses negotiate these obstacles. I hope in a series of posts in coming months to look in more detail at some of the technologies currently being used in the NHS, as well as emerging projects, and the opportunities and problems that surround them. I may stray occasionally into statistics or politics if you can cope with that! I am a practicing clinician with fingers in many pies so the frequency of my postings is likely to be inversely proportional to the workload I face! Comments are always welcome but I may not always reply in a timely manner.
Dr Damian Williams
almost 5 years ago
This is a quick hello so that you know who I am. Here is my blog which has links to my other online presences: http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/…
almost 4 years ago
Exclusive music news, big interviews, entertainment, social media trends and video from the news people at BBC Radio 1 and 1Xtra.
over 2 years ago
Dr Ben Goldacre is a best-selling author, blogger, broadcaster, campaigner, medical doctor and academic who specialises in unpicking the misuse of science and statistics by journalists, politicians, quacks and drug companies. In this podcast he talks enthusiastically about why he uses social media and how it can be valuable to doctors. #SoMe
about 3 years ago
In this new era of social media, medical schools must do more to ensure that online medical professionalism among trainees is understood, discussed and practiced, argues an editorial in...
over 2 years ago
Recently, I made a short video about where I see the use of technology in MedEd (take a look), and when asked to write for Meducation, I thought it would be great to get people thinking about technology and its uses in medical school. Social media – easy to use on smart phones, instant access to resources and thousands of likeminded people. Seems like a good place for medical education? Uses Now Students are often at the forefront of technology – we’ve grown up with it, and so many staff and lecturers within medical schools will be lagging. This makes it difficult to integrate technology into the curriculum, especially before technology has moved on. This is potentially why the use of twitter remains informal, and that may be its charm. By remaining informal, it means students can ask questions and get involved with hashtags without the constraints of marks and tests. Revision questions, mnemonics, diagrams and pictures are all over twitter, if you know where you’re looking. Here’s my current list of useful people in medical education to follow, and the hashtags I’m following: Advantages Easy and quick to set up an account Thousands of medics around the world – ask questions, network and share resources Can get involved as little or as much as you like Disadvantages Mixing social life and education – medicine can already take over your life, do we really want to be thinking about it in our spare time? And do you want your lecturer to follow you? Privacy – can only make full use of twitter with an open account Getting students involved – many students don’t want twitter, so if it was to be used formally in education, there would have to be incentives GMC advice on the use of social media can be found here. People to follow Hashtags to follow @knowmedge #quclms @meducation #twitfrig @twitfrg #FOAMed @MedEdNcl #MedEd @MedFinalsRev Content @patientuk Content I’ll update the list as it changes – leave a comment if you find anything good! Future Uses But can it be used in medical school? In my university, some lecturers put up a twitter feed, using the course name as a hashtag, where students ask questions without shouting out. The hashtag can be used after that, to ask questions and share relevant resources. I like this idea – but could it work in medical education? Maybe in early years it could be used in the same way, but once students are on placement it gets harder. While everyone is in different hospitals, it could be a good way to integrate learning, check students are meeting objectives and ask questions throughout to check understanding. Maybe its only use is announcements – “placement letters must be handed in by the 21st Jan”. The other question is, how long can twitter last for? We’re already seeing a gradual decline in Facebook, so it may not be worth medical schools investing time and money into social media. Are you on twitter? Do you keep it purely social or do you mix in medicine? Would you like to see your lecturers on board and tweeting you questions? At the moment, I’m not too sure – I keep my twitter for medicine, answering the questions from @knowmedge, saving the mnemonics from @medfinalsrev, but I’m not sure how much I would get involved if my medical school used it officially… Written by Anna Willis Anna is a Medical Student at Sheffield University and is a Resident Blogger for Meducation Follow Anna on Twitter: @AnnaPeerMedEd
almost 4 years ago
Unique blend of academic excellence and entrepreneurship, heading leading firms in India- Teleradiology Providers, pioneering company providing teleradiology services and DAMS (Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences) Premier test preparation institute in India for MD/MS/MCI preparation. He has also been an invited faculty member at various conferences, including Teleradiology in IRIA 2008 and 2011, Hospital Build Middle East, Congress of the Brain Tumor Radiology in Neuro-oncology Society. Dr. Sethi is Editor-in-Chief of Internet Journal of Radiology. He has a keen interest in Web 2.0 technologies and in maintaining his famous radiology blog, which has been featured in multiple international journals. '
over 2 years ago
This guidance was released today in the UK and if you haven't read it, it comes into effect in April and essentially is saying: we are allowed to maintain private online social profiles but must be aware if patients can access these and how we handle it if they contact us; any opinions voiced we have to make it clear it is our own and conduct yourself online as you would face to face with regards to confidentiality and boundaries. This is quite interesting for me, as in our medical school there have been select cases of social media being used in disciplinary processes and I know myself that some of the photos I had on Facebook (I have deleted it) were not exactly portraying myself as the 100% professional doctor the GMC would love me to be. But then reading the guidance, it makes no mention of content from when you were younger. When I'm an F1 will anybody really care about the drunk photos of me from freshers week 6 years ago and will these be taken out of context? I get the impression most people won't, but some might. I really think they should have put a summarising take-home message in there somewhere: don't take the p**s, think before you post, don't give out medical advice as anything but your opinion and you'll be fine.
over 4 years ago
Introduction The use of smartphones amongst health care professionals is now estimated to be in excess of 85%, with Apple's iPhone currently being the most popular platform. There is a wealth of information (from popular blogs, to formal journals) that demonstrate the potential of smartphone apps (and technology in general) to improve healthcare. However, despite widespread use of smartphones, proper application of the software at our disposal has been arguably poor. The latest mobile Apple operating system 'iOS 8', may be the start of a long-awaited overhaul of the current health apps available. The App Store - as it stands The Apple app store boasts many hundreds of what it describes as 'medical' apps. A review of the 'Top 200' medical apps conducted in 2012 by this author revealed that 49% were in fact general health or lifestyle applications aimed at the general public. The same process was repeated this year (2014) and demonstrated that this percentage has increased to 54%. This increase in apps aimed at the general public suggests that Apple do not differentiate between 'medical apps' and 'health and lifestyle' apps. This could negatively affect health care professionals' perception of the otherwise high-quality medical apps that are available. In addition, of the remaining percentage of apps aimed at healthcare professionals, only 5.56% were deemed to be of clinical benefit (an increased from 3% in 2012). The overwhelming majority of 'medical' apps aimed at medical professionals are actually educational in content and usually focus on the learning of anatomy. Current health apps Much like the 'medical' apps, only a limited selection of the health apps that are aimed at the public/patient are deemed to be high-quality. Prominent examples include the blood glucose monitors that record data in to a smartphone and similarly, the blood pressure and pain diaries. These examples focus on people with medical conditions, but it is important to note the potential of apps in preventative medicine too (i.e. promoting general health). Typical high-quality apps in this category include RunKeeper and Map My Ride. These apps allow everyone to become their own personal trainer and keep an accurate record of their physical activity. Smartphones will even send reminders to the user that a workout is due, and the option is present to share your stats and 'compete' with friends/family via social media. These features highlight the absolute vanguard of what could potentially come in terms of technology influencing healthy living. A current criticism of health apps is that most (if not all) are individual enterprises with very little information shared between them. The metaphor of 'silos' is used to represent these large vessels of information that sit adjacent to one another whilst never benefiting from the contents of one another. The iOS 8 operating system hopes to ameliorate this current issue with its new Health app and HealthKit, which will enable developers and their apps to pull data from several health related apps into one streamlined app. It is envisaged that this app will be able to feed (with the appropriate permissions of course) health related information to your family physician for health monitoring purposes. This could have impressive effects in community blood pressure management and blood glucose management (just to name the obvious ones). Problems Ahead There are scattered anecdotal reports of users being wary of centralised health information and as always Data Protection is a major concern (whether it is warranted or not). In addition, whilst a large percentage of the population may have a smartphone many may still opt not to use health related apps. Poor uptake will obviously limit the perception of this medium as a method of health monitoring. Summary Smartphone usage is high and many healthcare related apps are already available either to serve as medical tools to healthcare professionals or health monitoring devices for the public. Currently, Apple does not seem to differentiate between medical and lifestyle apps on its app store and many lower quality apps seem to appear in 'medical' searches. Also, Current apps do not share information. However, with iOS 8 it seems that Apple seems to be addressing several key issues surrounding the use of the iPhone as a health monitoring device. For the moment it seems that healthcare professionals will have to harness this patient-held approach. Perhaps direct improvements to the medical aspect of the Apple app store and the quality and originality of apps aimed at doctors is still a little way off.
Dr. Luke Farmery
over 3 years ago
Well I think they do. In 2012 I attended the #digidoc2012 conference in London. This was a conference aimed at bringing clinicians and technology enthusiasts together to learn how better to use technology to help in a clinical setting. Part of the day included tutorials and lectures, but my favourite part was the ‘hack’ session. In groups, we pitched ideas about potential apps which could be created to help different groups i.e. clinicians, patients, providers etc. From this session the initial concept of PhotoConsent was formed. The problem: Medical photography in a hospital setting can be relatively straight forward. A clinician can call up the medical photography department, get them to sort out the forms and details, patient consented, picture taken...done. The main issue with this is the time taken to access the medical photography department. Medical photography in a moderately acute setting or primary care is considerably less straight forward. Issues on how you document the consent, what methods used (verbal or written) and how this is stored need to be considered. There exists some guidance on the matter (see Good Medical Practice: Making and using visual and audio recordings of patients), however actual practice is variable. The added issue of social media and the ease of which images can now be shared can add to the confusion. The solution - PhotoConsent: I am involved in several on-line forums and governance groups. With seeing interactions about patient images in social media and various online clinical groups, I felt a more complete solution was needed which gave better protection and governance for both patients and clinicians. Following the #digidoc12 conference (https://thedigitaldoc.co.uk/), I met some innovative colleagues including Ed Wallit (@podmedicsed). We took this brainstormed idea further and now we have a finished product- PhotoConsent app. PhotoConsent is a new application designed to help you as a clinician to safely and easily take photos of a patient and then obtain the relevant consent for that photo quickly and efficiently. It is currently available on iOS. How does it work? Upon opening the app you can take a photo from the home screen. Once you have confirmed you have the best possible image, you and the patient are shown the consent options. Using PhotoConsent you can choose to obtain consent to use the photo for assessment, second opinion or referral, educational use or publication. In real time with the patient you can then select each consent option to explore in more detail to allow informed consent. This consent can then be digitally signed and emailed to the patient instantly. The image and consent can then be used by the clinician in accordance with GMC guidance. This can be via the app, email or via the online portal: PhotoConsent.co.uk. What makes PhotoConsent unique is that the consent is digitally secure in the metadata of the image. So proof of consent is always with the image. Why should I use PhotoConsent? It is important if taking a medical image of a patient, that consent is obtained and recorded. Written consent is considered the best option. PhotoConsent allows you to take consent with the patient in real-time, forward the patient a copy of the consent so they can stay informed, and be safe in the knowledge that consent is secure within the image metadata. All this is possible through your own iOS device making it convenient and effective for all involved. What is next for PhotoConsent? The first release of PhotoConsent is out, but there can always be progression. In the future I hope to bring the app to the Android platform to make it more accessible to a wider audience. We are also working on expanding the app to include consent for non-medical use. We have a few other ideas but time will tell if these are possible. About the owner: Dr Hussain Gandhi (@drgandalf52) is a GP and GP trainer working in the Nottingham area. He is a RCGP First5 lead, Treasurer of RCGP Vale of Trent faculty, co-author of The New GPs Handbook, owner of PhotoConsent and egplearning.co.uk – an e-learning portal; and a member of Tiko’s GP group on Facebook (@TheVoiceofTGG). All Images taken via PhotoConsent.
about 4 years ago
It’s quick, it’s easy and we’ve all done it. Don’t blush, whether it’s at our leisure or behind the consultant’s back we can confess to having used the world’s sixth most popular website. You might have seen it, sitting pride of place on the podium of practically any Google result page. Of course, it’s the tell tale sign of one of Web 2.0’s speediest and most successful offspring, Wikipedia. Now for fear of patronizing a generation who have sucked on the teat of this resource since its fledgling years, the formalities will remain delightfully short. Wikipedia is the free, multilingual, online encyclopedia, which harnesses the collective intelligence of the world’s internet users to produce a collaboratively written and openly modifiable body of knowledge. The technology it runs on is a highly flexible web application called wiki. It is open-source software; hence the explosion of wiki sites all united under the banner of combined authorship. Anyone with internet access can edit the content and do so with relative anonymity. It would be unthinkable that a source, which does not prioritize the fidelity of its content, could possibly play a role in medical education. How ironic it seems that medical students can waste hours pondering which textbook to swear their allegiance for the forthcoming rotation, yet not spare a second thought typing their next medical query into Wikipedia. Evidently it has carved itself a niche and not just among medical students, but healthcare professionals as well. According to a small qualitative study published in the International Journal of Medical Informatics, 70% of their sample, which comprised of graduates from London medical schools currently at FY2 and ST1 level, used Wikipedia in a given week for ‘clinical purposes’. These ranged from general background reading to double checking a differential and looking up medications. We are so ensnared by the allure of instantaneous enlightenment; it’s somewhat comparable to relieving an itch. "Just Google it..." is common parlance. We need that quick fix. When the consultant asks about his or her favourite eponymous syndrome or you’re a little short on ammunition before a tutorial, the breadth and ease-of-use offered by a service accessible from our phones is a clandestine escape. The concept of Wikipedia, the idea that its articles are in a way living bodies because of the continual editing process, is its strength. Conversely textbooks are to a degree outmoded by the time they reach their publication date. While I commend the contributors of Wikipedia for at least trying to bolster their pages with references to high impact journals, it does not soften the fact that the authorship is unverifiable. Visitors, lay people, registered members under some less than flattering pseudonyms such as Epicgenius and Mean as custard, don’t impart the sense of credibility students (or for that matter patients)expect from an encyclopedia. Since the prestige of direct authorship if off the cards, it does beg the question of what is their motivation and I’m afraid ‘the pursuit of knowledge and improving humanity’s lot' is the quaint response. There is a distinct lack of transparency. It has become a playground where a contributor can impress his/her particular theory regarding a controversial subject unchallenged. Considering there is no direct ownership of the article, who then has the authority to curate the multiple theories on offer and portray a balanced view? Does an edit war ensue? It is not unheard of for drug representatives to tailor articles detailing their product and erase the less pleasant side-effects. Obviously Wikipedia is not unguarded, defences are in place and there is such a thing as quality control. Recent changes will come under the scrutiny of more established editors, pages that are particularly prone to vandalism are vetted and there are a special breed of editors called administrators, who uphold a custodial post, blocking and banishing rebellious editors. A study featured in the First Monday journal put Wikipedia to the test by deliberately slipping minor errors into the entries of past philosophers. Within 48 hours half of these errors had been addressed. Evidently, the service has the potential to improve over time; provided there is a pool of committed and qualified editors. Wikiproject Medicine is such a group of trusted editors composed primarily of doctors, medical students, nurses, clinical scientists and patients. Since 2004, its two hundred or so participants have graded an excess of 25,000 health-related articles according to quality parameters not dissimilar to peer review. However, the vast majority of articles are in a state of intermediate quality, somewhere between a stub and featured article. Having some degree of professional input towards a service as far reaching as Wikipedia will no doubt have an impact on global health, particularly in developing countries where internet access is considered a luxury. March this year saw the medical pages of the English Wikipedia reach a lofty 249,386,264 hits. Its ubiquity is enviable; it maintains a commanding lead over competing medical websites. The accessibility of this information has catapulted Wikipedia far beyond its scope as a humble encyclopedia and into a medical resource. Patients arrive to clinics armed with the printouts. As future doctors we will have to be just that one step ahead, to recognise the limitations of a source that does not put a premium on provenance but is nevertheless the current public health tool of choice. Illustrator Edward Wong This blog post is a reproduction of an article published in the Medical Student Newspaper, November 2013 issue.
over 3 years ago
Exclusive music news, big interviews, entertainment, social media trends and video from the news people at BBC Radio 1 and 1Xtra.
over 3 years ago
http://www.einstein.yu.edu -- Susannah Fox, associate director of digital strategy at the Pew Internet & American Life Project, explains why she believes onl...
over 3 years ago