Background. Microencapsulation of islets of Langherhans in alginate poly-L-lysine capsules provides an effective protection against cell-mediated immune destruction, and ideally should allow the transplantation of islets in the absence of immunosuppression. It has previously been suggested that alginate rich in mannuronic acid (high M) is more immunogenic than alginate rich in guluronic acid (high G). The ability of these alginates to induce an antibody response in the recipient or act as an adjuvant to antibody responses against antigens leaked from the capsule was investigated in the present study. Methods. Empty capsules made from these different types of alginate were transplanted intraperitoneally to Wistar rats or Balb/c mice. In addition, some animals were also injected with bovine serum albumin to assess the ability of the alginates to act as an adjuvant to this antigen. Antibody responses to intraperitoneally transplanted free and microencapsulated fetal porcine islet like cell clusters (ICC) were also evaluated, in animals treated with or without cyclosporine. Results. Antibodies against high M-alginate capsules were detected in the sera of mice transplanted with this capsule type. However, this response was not seen after the transplantation of high G capsules. When Wistar rats were used as recipients, no antibody responses were detected against any type of alginate capsules. Neither type of capsule acted as an adjuvant. Antibodies against ICC were present, in rats transplanted with both nonencapsulated and encapsulated ICCs. Administration of cyclosporine could abolish this production of antibodies against ICC. Conclusions. High G-alginate capsules are less immunogenic than high M capsules. Because encapsulation did not protect against the generation of antibodies against ICC, it can be assumed that antigen leakage from the capsules occurs, as no evidence was found for capsules breaking in vivo.

Background: Health care systems are currently undergoing a digital transformation that has been primarily triggered by emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, 5G, blockchain, and the digital representation of patients using (mobile) sensor devices. One of the results of this transformation is the gradual virtualization of care. Irrespective of the care environment, trust between caregivers and patients is essential for achieving favorable health outcomes. Given the many breaches of information security and patient safety, today’s health information system portfolios do not suffice as infrastructure for establishing and maintaining trust in virtual care environments. Objective: This study aims to establish a theoretical foundation for a complex health care system intervention that aims to exploit a cryptographically secured infrastructure for establishing and maintaining trust in virtualized care environments and, based on this theoretical foundation, present a proof of concept that fulfills the necessary requirements. Methods: This work applies the following framework for the design and evaluation of complex intervention research within health care: a review of the literature and expert consultation for technology forecasting. A proof of concept was developed by following the principles of design science and requirements engineering. Results: This study determined and defined the crucial functional and nonfunctional requirements and principles for enhancing trust between caregivers and patients within a virtualized health care environment. The cornerstone of our architecture is an approach that uses blockchain technology. The proposed decentralized system offers an innovative governance structure for a novel trust model. The presented theoretical design principles are supported by a concrete implementation of an Ethereum-based platform called VerifyMed. Conclusions: A service for enhancing trust in a virtualized health care environment that is built on a public blockchain has a high fit for purpose in Healthcare 4.0.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

Background: Most hospitals keep and update their paper-based medical records after introducing an electronic medical record or a hospital information system (HIS). This case report describes a HIS in a hospital where the paper-based medical records are scanned and eliminated. To evaluate the HIS comprehensively, the perspectives of medical secretaries and nurses are described as well as that of physicians. Methods: We have used questionnaires and interviews to assess and compare frequency of use of the HIS for essential tasks, task performance and user satisfaction among medical secretaries, nurses and physicians. Results: The medical secretaries use the HIS much more than the nurses and the physicians, and they consider that the electronic HIS greatly has simplified their work. The work of nurses and physicians has also become simplified, but they find less satisfaction with the system, particularly with the use of scanned document images. Conclusions: Although the basis for reference is limited, the results support the assertion that replacing the paper-based medical record primarily benefits the medical secretaries, and to a lesser degree the nurses and the physicians. The varying results in the different employee groups emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach when evaluating a HIS.

Evaluation is a challenging but necessary part of the development cycle of clinical information systems like the electronic medical records (EMR) system. It is believed that such evaluations should include multiple perspectives, be comparative and employ both qualitative and quantitative methods. Self-administered questionnaires are frequently used as a quantitative evaluation method in medical informatics, but very few validated questionnaires address clinical use of EMR systems. We have developed a task-oriented questionnaire for evaluating EMR systems from the clinician's perspective. The key feature of the questionnaire is a list of 24 general clinical tasks. It is applicable to physicians of most specialties and covers essential parts of their information-oriented work. The task list appears in two separate sections, about EMR use and task performance using the EMR, respectively. By combining these sections, the evaluator may estimate the potential impact of the EMR system on health care delivery. The results may also be compared across time, site or vendor. This paper describes the development, performance and validation of the questionnaire. Its performance is shown in two demonstration studies (n = 219 and 80). Its content is validated in an interview study (n = 10), and its reliability is investigated in a test-retest study (n = 37) and a scaling study (n = 31). In the interviews, the physicians found the general clinical tasks in the questionnaire relevant and comprehensible. The tasks were interpreted concordant to their definitions. However, the physicians found questions about tasks not explicitly or only partially supported by the EMR systems difficult to answer. The two demonstration studies provided unambiguous results and low percentages of missing responses. In addition, criterion validity was demonstrated for a majority of task-oriented questions. Their test-retest reliability was generally high, and the non-standard scale was found symmetric and ordinal. This questionnaire is relevant for clinical work and EMR systems, provides reliable and interpretable results, and may be used as part of any evaluation effort involving the clinician's perspective of an EMR system.