A current literature review of the social and economic ramifications of pharmacogenomic research

Objective. To explore issues in current literature concerning possible social and economic ramifications of pharmacogenomic research. Design. Review of the literature. Data sources: Academic Search Premier, Blackwell Synergy, PUBMED and Social Sciences Citation Index. Review methods. Articles dealing with the social and economic ramifications of pharmacogenomic research were selected. The articles discussed at least one of 5 areas (race, privacy/confidentiality, ethics, insurance, and research and development). Some restrictions were placed on the articles chosen to narrow down the number of articles to a relevant, manageable amount. Results. Approximately 219 articles were selected for review; 159 were fully reviewed and found to be relevant to the issues; and 33 were cited. Conclusion. Insurance and research and development decisions are led by the free-market system with limited intervention from government. Race/ethnicity, privacy/confidentiality, and ethics continue to be debated with no clear answer. However, some compromise is regulated by government based upon current laws involving these issues. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Assessing the impact of leadership on nurse job satisfaction and the desire for unionization in health care settings

This dissertation focuses on the leadership styles of managers, the impact these leadership styles have on the job satisfaction of staff nurses, and the proclivity of nurses to consider unionization. The aims of the dissertation include conducting a literature review on topics of leadership style, job satisfaction, and unionization; identifying and elucidating pertinent constructs with respect to shared interrelationships and how they could be measured; and developing a means of assessing if and to what extent transformational and transactional leadership styles affect nurse proclivity to unionize.^ The instrumentation selected includes the Multifactor Leadership Survey, Job Satisfaction Survey, and a newly created Union Preference Survey. Each survey instrument was evaluated as to its appropriateness to administer at a non-consultant level within a health care facility. Options other than self-administering the survey instruments include online access for participants, which provides confidentiality and encourages more responses. ^ The next part of the dissertation is a plan for health care facilities to use the survey tool by administering it themselves. The plan provides a general description of the survey tool, administering the instrument, rating the instrument, and leadership development. Integration of the three surveys is presented in a non-statistical format by coordinating the results of the three survey instrument responses. Recommendations are presented on how to improve leadership development warranted for improvement.^ The conclusions reached are that nurses’ preference for unions is influenced by the leadership style of direct report managers, as rated by staff nurses, and the nurses’ job satisfaction, which is in turn in part dependent on their managers’ leadership style. Thus, changes in leadership style can have a profound impact on nurse job satisfaction and on nurses’ preference for unionization.^