INTRODUCTION: A rapid learning system (RLS) of health care harnesses data generated from routine patient care to create a virtuous cycle of data collection and analysis for quality improvement and research. The success of such systems depends on understanding patient perspectives regarding the ethical issues that arise from the ongoing implementation of this transformative concept. METHODS: An interview guide was designed to evaluate patient perspectives to inform the ethical implementation of an oncology RLS. A purposively selected, diverse sample of 32 patients with cancer was recruited from two institutions to participate in semistructured, in-depth interviews for formal qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The extent to which respondents expressed discomfort with more permissive system features (less formal notification/consent, broader uses/users, inclusion of sensitive data) reflected their trust, which in turn seemed to vary by sociodemographic features. It was also influenced by their familiarity with technology and their attitudes and beliefs regarding privacy and the use of electronic medical records more generally. Distrust of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry led subjects to desire greater oversight and restriction of these potential users of the system. Subjects were most comfortable when doctors were the primary users, engaged patients directly in the notification and consent discussion, and oversaw the system. CONCLUSION: Those actively developing RLSs should recognize the critical importance of trust and the key role that doctors will need to play in order for such systems to be successful and to ensure that their implementation is ethically palatable to the patients whose data are being included.
INTRODUCTION: A rapid learning system (RLS) of health care harnesses data generated from routine patient care to create a virtuous cycle of data collection and analysis for quality improvement and research. The success of such systems depends on understanding patient perspectives regarding the ethical issues that arise from the ongoing implementation of this transformative concept. METHODS: An interview guide was designed to evaluate patient perspectives to inform the ethical implementation of an oncology RLS. A purposively selected, diverse sample of 32 patients with cancer was recruited from two institutions to participate in semistructured, in-depth interviews for formal qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The extent to which respondents expressed discomfort with more permissive system features (less formal notification/consent, broader uses/users, inclusion of sensitive data) reflected their trust, which in turn seemed to vary by sociodemographic features. It was also influenced by their familiarity with technology and their attitudes and beliefs regarding privacy and the use of electronic medical records more generally. Distrust of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry led subjects to desire greater oversight and restriction of these potential users of the system. Subjects were most comfortable when doctors were the primary users, engaged patients directly in the notification and consent discussion, and oversaw the system. CONCLUSION: Those actively developing RLSs should recognize the critical importance of trust and the key role that doctors will need to play in order for such systems to be successful and to ensure that their implementation is ethically palatable to the patients whose data are being included.
Authors: Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Kent A Griffith; Rebecca Spence; Angela R Bradbury; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Rodney A Hayward; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Aaron Sabolch; Rochelle Jones; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; David Grande; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara M Andrews; Melissa Raspa; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Lauren Turner-Brown; Laura Wagner; Alexandra Alvarez Rivas; Mary Katherine Frisch; Anne C Wheeler Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew G Shuman; Michele C Gornick; Collin Brummel; Madison Kent; Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Elliot Biddle; Carol R Bradford; J Chad Brenner Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.591
Authors: Sarah Tosoni; Indu Voruganti; Katherine Lajkosz; Flavio Habal; Patricia Murphy; Rebecca K S Wong; Donald Willison; Carl Virtanen; Ann Heesters; Fei-Fei Liu Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Kent A Griffith; Rebecca Spence; Angela R Bradbury; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Reshma Jagsi Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-10-23
Authors: Jan Piasecki; Ewa Walkiewicz-Żarek; Justyna Figas-Skrzypulec; Anna Kordecka; Vilius Dranseika Journal: Med Health Care Philos Date: 2021-06-19