Digital assistants have become an indispensable tool in modern cardiology. The associated technological progress offers a significant potential to increase the efficiency of medical processes, enable more precise diagnoses in a shorter time, and thus improve patient care. However, the integration of digital assistants into clinical cardiology also raises new challenges and questions, particularly regarding the handling of legal issues. This review article aims to raise awareness of individual legal issues resulting from the use of digital technologies in cardiology. The focus is on how to deal with various legal challenges that cardiologists face, including issues related to treatment freedom, professional confidentiality and data protection. The integration of digital assistants in cardiology leads to a noticeable improvement in efficiency and quality of patient care, but at the same time, it involves a variety of legal challenges that need to be carefully addressed.
UNASSIGNED: Digitale Helfer sind inzwischen ein unverzichtbares Werkzeug in der modernen Kardiologie. Der damit einhergehende technologische Fortschritt bietet hierbei ein ausgesprochenes Potenzial, die Effizienz medizinischer Prozesse zu steigern, in kürzester Zeit präzisere Diagnosen zu ermöglichen und damit die Patientenversorgung zu verbessern. Doch mit der zunehmenden Integration digitaler Helfer im sonst arbeitsintensiven kardiologischen Berufsalltag ergeben sich auch neue Herausforderungen und Fragestellungen, insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Umgang mit dem Thema Recht. Der vorliegende Übersichtsartikel zielt darauf ab, ein Bewusstsein für einzelne juristische Themen zu schaffen, die aus der Verwendung digitaler Technologien in der Kardiologie resultieren. Dabei wird es im Kern um den wohlüberlegten Umgang mit den haftungsrechtlichen Themen der Therapiefreiheit, des kardiologischen Facharztstandards, der ärztlichen Schweigepflicht wie auch des Datenschutzes gehen. Die Integration digitaler Helfer in der Kardiologie führt insgesamt zu einer spürbaren Verbesserung der Effizienz und Qualität der Patientenversorgung, beinhaltet jedoch gleichzeitig eine Vielzahl rechtlicher Herausforderungen, die sorgfältig adressiert werden müssen.

OBJECTIVE: This study is to establish a nomination graph model for individualised early prediction of the 3-month prognosis of patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) receiving intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator.
METHODS: For the period from January 2016 through August 2022, 991 patients who had an acute stroke eligible for intravenous thrombolysis were included in the retrospective analysis study. The study was based on multifactor logistic regression.
METHODS: Patients who received treatment from January 2016 to February 2021 were included in the training cohort, and those who received treatment from March 2021 to August 2022 were included in the testing cohort.
METHODS: Each patient received intravenous thrombolysis within 4.5 hours of onset, with treatment doses divided into standard doses (0.9 mg/kg).
METHODS: The primary outcome measure was a 3-month adverse outcome (modified Rankin Scale 3-6).
RESULTS: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score after thrombolysis (OR=1.18; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36; p = 0.015), door-to-needle time (OR=1.01; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.003), baseline blood glucose (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.16; p=0.042), blood homocysteine (OR=7.14; 95% CI: 4.12 to 12.71; p<0.001), monocytes (OR=0.05; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.043; p=0.005) and monocytes/high-density lipoprotein (OR=62.93; 95% CI: 16.51 to 283.08; p<0.001) were independent predictors of adverse outcomes 3 months after intravenous thrombolysis, and the above six factors were included in the nominated DGHM2N nomogram. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of the training cohort was 0.870 (95% CI: 0.841 to 0.899) and in the testing cohort was 0.822 (95% CI: 0.769 to 0.875).
CONCLUSIONS: A reliable nomogram model (DGHM2N model) was developed and validated in this study. This nomogram could individually predict the adverse outcome of patients who had an AIS receiving intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for 3 months.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative evidence on clinicians\' views and experiences of defensive practice.
METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative data.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest Dissertations & Theses and PROSPERO were searched from 2000 to October 2023.
METHODS: We included English-language studies of clinicians which reported qualitative data on the impact of litigation or complaints on clinical practice.
METHODS: We coded findings data line by line using a grounded theory approach. We assessed quality using Hawker et al\'s tool and synthesised data thematically.
RESULTS: 17 studies were included. Participants identify a range of clinical decisions which may be defensively motivated, relating to diagnosis and documentation as well as to treatment. Defensive practice often relates to a diffuse sense of risk rather than the direct threat of litigation and may overlap with other motivations, such as perceived pressure from patients or the desire to avoid harm. Defensive practice is seen to be harmful in many ways, but again, these perceptions may gain force from broader narratives of mistrust and disempowerment, as much as from the risk of litigation.
CONCLUSIONS: The idea of defensive practice, as enacted, is more complex than some theoretical accounts suggest and may often function to express broader concerns about the work of clinical care. The qualitative evidence calls into question the view of defensive practice as a key mediator linking litigation risk to inappropriate treatment and excess costs.

Healthcare provision takes place in a variety of contexts, with variations of resources available to practitioners and their patients. Effects from the COVID-19 pandemic superimposed on existing system demands have driven increasing concern about resource limitations, particularly in rural and remote settings. This article explores the legal liability of medical practitioners and healthcare services with respect to actions in negligence arising from harm to patients suffered, either partly or wholly, as a result of resource limitations.

The article considers the concept of medical incidents of «improper provision of medical care», implying the action or inaction of a medical worker who violates the procedure for providing medical care established by regulatory legal acts and standards. The relevance of the study of issues related to the medical and legal norms of holding medical workers accountable when medical care is of inadequate quality is due to the importance of understanding offenses in the medical field and assessing the responsibility of medical workers, who act as criteria for the presence of problems in the medical field and the impetus for reforming the health system.

BACKGROUND: Racism in healthcare leads to significant harm to healthcare professionals and the clients, families and communities they serve. Increasingly, health practitioner regulators-responsible for protecting the public and ensuring practitioner competence-are recognising the importance of reforming policies and practices to contribute to antiracist regulatory approaches. Examples of this work include developing specific standards of practice related to antiracism and antidiscrimination, supporting education and training, re-evaluating discriminatory licensure policies for internationally educated professionals and reforming internal governance structures to address unconscious bias. An understanding of the current state of literature can help identify knowledge gaps and inform the development of research agendas that can build the evidence base required to improve health practitioner regulators\' approaches to addressing racism.The objective of this scoping review is to explore the nature, extent and range of literature focused on racism and health practitioner regulation and identify gaps in the literature.
METHODS: The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. Database searches will include OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. The review will include papers that discuss how health practitioner regulation can contribute to and perpetuate interpersonal and institutional racism, and how regulatory policies and practices can help address racism. We will also search for grey literature using the websites of leading regulatory organisations. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Findings will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.
BACKGROUND: Ethics approval is not applicable to this review protocol. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, meetings with health practitioner regulators and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

This paper interrogates the depoliticising effects of a seemingly neutral regulatory drive at the heart of the World Health Organization (WHO)\'s promotion of traditional medicine. Emerging at WHO in the late 1960s against a political backdrop of decolonisation and pan-Africanism, traditional medicine has continued to be promoted in subsequent decades, culminating in the latest global Traditional Medicine Strategy (2014 to 2023). Yet WHO\'s promotion and acceptance of traditional medicine have also become increasingly conditional upon its standardisation and regulation - something that appears fundamentally at odds with traditional medicine\'s heterogeneity. Drawing on insights from critical law and science and technology studies, we suggest that such a process at WHO has done more than simply disqualify the toxic and the dangerous. Rather, it has implicitly and explicitly marginalised and excluded those aspects of traditional medicine that deviate from scientific, biomedical ways of seeing, knowing and organising.

OBJECTIVE: What are the Canadian public\'s understanding of and views toward medical assistance in dying (MAID) in persons refusing recommended treatment or lacking access to standard treatment or resources?
METHODS: An online survey assessed knowledge of and support for Canadian MAID law, and views about four specific scenarios in a two (medical or psychiatric) by two (treatment refusal or lack of access) design.
METHODS: A quota sample (N=2140) matched to the 2021 Canadian census by age, gender, income, education and province.
RESULTS: Participants\' level of support for MAID in general and in the four specific scenarios.
RESULTS: Only 12.1% correctly answered ≥4 of 5 knowledge questions about the MAID law; only 19.2% knew terminal illness is not required and 20.2% knew treatment refusal is compatible with eligibility. 73.3% of participants expressed support for the MAID law in general, matching a nationally representative poll that used the same question. 40.4% of respondents supported MAID for mental illnesses. Support for MAID in the scenarios depicting refusal or lack of access to treatment ranged from 23.2% (lack of access in medical condition) to 32.0% (treatment refusal in medical illness). Older age, more education, higher income, lower religious attendance or being white was associated with greater support for MAID in general but was either negatively associated or not associated with support for MAID in the four refusal or lack of access scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: Most Canadians support the current MAID law but appear unaware that MAID cases they do not support are compatible with that law. The lower support for MAID in the four scenarios cuts across sociodemographics. The gap between current policy and public opinion warrants further study. For jurisdictions debating MAID, opinion surveys may need to go beyond assessing general attitudes, and target knowledge and views regarding implications of legalisation.

The relevance of this article is due to the fact that international standards in the field of health care and medical services are central to the field of world principles of functioning and development of medical law. The aim of the article is to conduct research on the peculiarities of international standards in the field of health care and medical services, as well as to study the prospects of their implementation in Ukraine. Leading research methods are general and special research methods, including methods of logic, analysis, comparison. The results of this study are to outline recommendations for the use of international standards in the field of health care and medical services in Ukraine and to summarize the legal framework on this issue. The significance of the results is reflected in the fact that this study can serve as a basis for outlining future changes in current legislation of Ukraine on the functioning of the health care system and implementation of world practices in health care. Within the framework of this study, systematized the main international and European documents that reflect the main international standards in the field of health care and medical services and ratified in Ukraine and have a direct impact on the legal framework for this area.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Council of Europe agreed to urge member states to take steps toward total abolition of psychiatric coercive measures.
OBJECTIVE: To test if this aspiration is perceived as realistic and what the alternative would be in the event of a total abolition, we surveyed members of the European FOSTREN network of mental health practitioners and researchers, which is specifically dedicated to exchanging knowledge on reducing psychiatric coercion to its minimum.
METHODS: Web-based survey. Categorical responses were analyzed using frequencies, and free text responses were analyzed through thematic analysis.
RESULTS: In total, out of 167 invitations to FOSTREN network members, 76 responded to the survey (Response Rate 45.5%). A minority (31%) of participating experts dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercive measures believed a total abolition to be an achievable goal. A commonly held belief was that total abolition is not achievable because mental health disorders are difficult to treat and may cause violence, necessitating coercion, and there is a need to protect the involved persons from harm. Those responding that complete abolition is achievable argued that the consequences of coercion outweigh any gains and indicated that use of advance directives are sufficient as alternatives to coercion.
CONCLUSIONS: Of a European group of experts specifically dedicated to the reduction of psychiatric coercion who participated in this questionnaire study, a minority believed a total abolition be an achievable goal. The study adds to the empirical evidence of the feasibility of the aspiration to totally abolish involuntary measures in the mental health services from the perspective of experts.