Preparing for the Technology Revolution in Health Care

2007 ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Brian L. Foster
2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakesh Agrawal ◽  
Tyrone Grandison ◽  
Christopher Johnson ◽  
Jerry Kiernan

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1227-1230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine D. Barnard ◽  
Marc D. Breton

Over recent years there has been an explosion in availability of technical devices to support diabetes self-management. But with this technology revolution comes new hurdles. On paper, the available diabetes technologies should mean that the vast majority of people with type 1 diabetes have optimal glycemic control and are using their preferred therapy choices. Yet, it does not appear to be universally the case. In parallel, suboptimal glycemic control remains stubbornly widespread. Barriers to improvement include access to technology, access to expert diabetes health care professionals, and prohibitive insurance costs. Until access can be improved to ensure the technologies are available and usable by those that need them, there are many people with diabetes who are still losing out.


1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document