Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38990611›Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2024

Insights From a Clinically Orientated Workshop on Health Care Cybersecurity and Medical Technology: Observational Study and Thematic Analysis.

Isabel Straw, Irina Brass, Andrew Mkwashi, Inika Charles, Amelie Soares, Caroline Steer

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Isabel StrawInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0003-3550
Irina BrassDepartment of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5067-4191
Andrew MkwashiNewcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3609-1317
Inika CharlesUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0002-0693-3680
Amelie SoaresUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-3485-9988
Caroline SteerUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0007-8359-0112

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care professionals receive little training on the digital technologies that their patients rely on. Consequently, practitioners may face significant barriers when providing care to patients experiencing digitally mediated harms (eg, medical device failures and cybersecurity exploits). Here, we explore the impact of technological failures in clinical terms.

objectiveOur study explored the key challenges faced by frontline health care workers during digital events, identified gaps in clinical training and guidance, and proposes a set of recommendations for improving digital clinical practice.

methodsA qualitative study involving a 1-day workshop of 52 participants, internationally attended, with multistakeholder participation. Participants engaged in table-top exercises and group discussions focused on medical scenarios complicated by technology (eg, malfunctioning ventilators and malicious hacks on health care apps). Extensive notes from 5 scribes were retrospectively analyzed and a thematic analysis was performed to extract and synthesize data.

resultsClinicians reported novel forms of harm related to technology (eg, geofencing in domestic violence and errors related to interconnected fetal monitoring systems) and barriers impeding adverse event reporting (eg, time constraints and postmortem device disposal). Challenges to providing effective patient care included a lack of clinical suspicion of device failures, unfamiliarity with equipment, and an absence of digitally tailored clinical protocols. Participants agreed that cyberattacks should be classified as major incidents, with the repurposing of existing crisis resources. Treatment of patients was determined by the role technology played in clinical management, such that those reliant on potentially compromised laboratory or radiological facilities were prioritized.

conclusionsHere, we have framed digital events through a clinical lens, described in terms of their end-point impact on the patient. In doing so, we have developed a series of recommendations for ensuring responses to digital events are tailored to clinical needs and center patient care.

Indexed as

Computer SecurityBiomedical TechnologyFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansQualitative Researchbiotechnologyclinical medicinedevice regulationdigital healthdigital medicineeHealthhealth carehealth care cybersecurityinternet of medical thingsmedical devicemedical education

Identifiers

PMID38990611
PMCPMC11273071

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.