We Must Analyze and Clear Up the Ethical Issues in FOAM
By Nathan G. Allen, MD, FACEP; Eashwar B. Chandrasekaran, MD, Msc; Rebecca R. Goett, MD, FACEP, FAAHPM; Nicholas H. Kluesner, MD, FACEP; and Laura Vearrier, MD, DBioethics; ACEP Ethics Committee
|
on November 16, 2018
|
2 Responses to “We Must Analyze and Clear Up the Ethical Issues in FOAM”
November 26, 2018
John Dayton, MD, FACEP, FAAEMThis is a great article on a timely topic. The free, worldwide access that effectively uses multimedia is a major selling point for me. I get some of the cons, but feel like #FOAMed users consume these resources as part of their continuing education and most #FOAMed resources focus on research rather than trying to avoid peer review for new ideas.
#FOAMed tools are a great adjunct and proper incorporation into education seems to be a focus of leading groups like SAEM’s Social Media Committee, ALiEM, and ACEP’s Council of EMed Residency Directors (CORD).
December 2, 2018
Anton HelmanMany FOAMed resources have a strict conflict of interest policy that is similar to medical journals. Industry/pharma influence is far more pervasive in peer reviewed journals than in FOAMed. Example: https://emergencymedicinecases.com/conflict-interest-policy/.
The following issues are not unique to FOAMed but to many medical education resources:
1. Patient confidentiality issues are the same regardless of whether the resource is a peer reviewed article or FOAMed resource.
2. World wide access is true for texbooks, peer reviewed journal articles, FOAMed resources.
3. No Curriculum is true for texbooks, peer reviewed journal articles, FOAMed resources. Universities set curriculums based on all of the above.
4. Eminence vs evidence is true for any speaker at any medical conference and any opinion leader writing an editorial in a peer reviewed journal.