Brett Williams

Background: Professional ethical codes are an important part of healthcare. They are part of the professionalisation of an occupation, are used for regulation of the professions and are intended to guide ethical behaviour in healthcare. However, so far, little is known about the practical use of professional codes in healthcare, particularly in paramedicine. Objective: The aim of this scoping review was to determine what is known in the existing literature about health professionals’ knowledge, awareness and use of their professional codes. Method: A scoping review was performed based on a six-stage framework as described by Levac et al. Six databases were searched: OVID Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, ProQuest and Scopus, in September 2020. Google Scholar, Trove and Google using.gov and.org websites were also searched for grey literature. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Results: The search yielded 1162 results after duplicate removal. Thirty-nine studies remained after title and abstract review. Twenty-five articles were included after full-text review. Sixteen examined nursing, eight examined medicine and one examined both nursing and medicine. No studies were identified that examined paramedicine. Twenty-one studies were of a cross-sectional design and four studies were of a qualitative design. Conclusion: Most health professionals know the codes exist, but do not think they know the content. Despite valuing professional codes highly, healthcare professionals do not use them regularly in clinical practice. Further research is needed, and professional codes should be made useful for practice and consideration given to how codes can be written, communicated and implemented to increase their actualisation in healthcare. Research should also begin in paramedicine to identify clinician’s knowledge and use of codes in this profession. Review registration: Open Science Framework – doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/NKBY4 Ethics Statement: This article does not contain any studies involving human participants performed by any of the authors. The review followed good scientific conduct.

Background Paramedicine is a newly regulated profession in Australia and with the introduction of regulation in 2018 for this profession came increased responsibilities – including the introduction of a professional code of conduct. Several countries now have regulation of paramedicine and associated professional codes to guide ethical and professional behaviour. Despite this, there has been no published research into paramedic understanding and use of their professional codes. Objectives To explore Australian paramedics’ use and understanding of their professional code of conduct. Research design: This study used a qualitative descriptive design, underpinned by hermeneutic theory. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data and identify Australian paramedic perceptions surrounding the use of their code of conduct. Results 11 Registered Paramedics from several states and territories were interviewed. Participants were invited to interview by advertisement on social media and the Australasian College of Paramedicine Web site. Participants had varied professional backgrounds including clinical work, education providers and policymakers/managers. Four themes were identified as follows: Theme 1 – ‘You don’t know, what you can’t know’; Theme 2 – ‘I don’t need the code – the code is for others’; Theme 3 – ‘It’s about time’; Theme 4 – ‘Navigating the new profession’. Ethical considerations: Ethics approval was granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) Project ID: 28921. All participants provided informed consent. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that paramedics’ knowledge and use of their code is limited, and participants appeared to mostly rely instead on ‘common sense’ morals. Participants did appear to want to understand the broad concepts of the code more and have this better integrated into the profession. The code was also interpreted as important to the paramedic profession and its new professional status, helping to legitimise it as a health profession in Australia.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers.