Your Place, Your Space

For all the global health coordination, and all the international research collaboration, there is no movement toward scope of practice, labor regulation, prescribing regulation or biotechnological responsibility standardization.  We should encourage measured progress toward accountability in medicine regulation, and we should do so with countries at the table.   What are the medical professions, credentials, approved education and scope of practice in healthcare, per country? What are the community healthcare worker (CHW) roles if allowed, per country? What would countries like to see adjusted or mirrored?  Which procedures are allowed for each healthcare profession? What are the rationales, inclusive of supply and demand and access issues?  What are the differences in approvals and guidelines for medicine safety, and for who can prescribe what? What is the healthcare political climate in various countries and how does this affect decision making? What analytics are available for expa

Responsiveness in healthcare affects optimal management, psychological safety, physical safety, customer service and quality.  Responsiveness is often dropped, or not followed through, or placed as a one-time play.  When considering others’ places and spaces, healthcare must anticipate that the gaps left by “no reply” get filled in. One way or another, a lack of response gets substituted. Often, misinformation gets deputized. As healthcare becomes increasingly interested in “infodemics” [1] and misinformation, healthcare must first take responsibility and ownership of responsiveness.  In others places and spaces, and in healthcare’s own, there must be ownership of:    How often concerns are raised to the organization, and to global health, by experts in medical fields? In other fields? How often concerns are raised by general members of the public?  The types of concerns raised Potential algorithms or classifications, so that critical reviews can occur in a timely fashion. Responsible

Biomedical laboratory processes should be safe, with safety reporting assured in every space and place.  Global coordination of biomedical laboratory safety should include representative voices, tied to accountability, so that individual places and spaces are at the table. Approve the risk assessments through third party review. Most governments, administrations, organizations and healthcare guidance (including WHO) assign the responsibility of Risk Assessments to the Biomedical Laboratories. If there are standards to risk assessments, and standards to operations in laboratory science, a third party should be  weighing in on risk. Risk based on animals, vectors and biotissue studied, risk based on diseases studied, risk based on prior and current laboratory professional behaviors, risk based on facility design and risk based on clinical staff are all capable of third party analysis in conjunction with self analysis. Ask facilities and government liaisons what they would like included,

  Roads Transportation barriers, and alternatives to transportation in healthcare, remain poorly understood. Given the sophistication in global citizenry and global policy, as well as the sophistication of climate science evolution, oversight of transportation in healthcare can be improved. Healthcare transportation oversight should improve with regard to one another’s place and space.   *Ask countries how we can partner with transportation barrier epidemiology, with improved health outcomes as a shared ultimate goal. Emphasize the importance to transient, migrant or nomadic populations as well. *Be clear on finances and transportation with each geographical distinction. *Work toward cultural considerations, such preference for familiar or home care, or comfort and ease with community members or strangers. *Ask for population preference data in shared economy inclusion, and seek for data separate from a company’s self-report. *Ask countries to identify transportation burdens, barriers