Clearly, the nurse should have been a major defendant in this case. Their unprofessional behaviour could, I believe, have led to a verdict against them. In addition, a complaint to the state nursing authority would most likely result in disciplinary action. Another factor analyzed in our study was those responsible for privacy breaches. Like Ubel and Cols [10] and Mlinek and Pierce [11], we found that such incidents were committed by all health care workers, including medical students in our case. Hendelman and Byszewski [15] also demonstrated that medical students were involved in 19-51% of all reported incidents. In addition, we classified the severity of the low to high severity offences described above as follows: a significant correlation was observed within certain groups of staff involved in the offence (Table 4), namely physicians (p < 0.001) and residents (p = 0.006), both of whom were more likely to commit serious offences (43.4% and 38.5% respectively). In our study, it was observed that doctors were responsible for the greatest number of violations (51.4%), although we thought this could be due to some bias, as the observers were medical students who carried out their clinical internships mainly under the guidance of doctors and, to a lesser extent, with medical assistants. This is an important point, because although medical care is currently provided by teams and all team members are required to keep it secret, it is the doctors who are primarily responsible for ensuring that this duty is fulfilled, not only in terms of patients` clinical data, but also in other types of information, that are inherent in the doctor-patient relationship. Our study shows that most breaches of confidentiality (or incidents related to the disclosure of confidential information) occurred primarily in public spaces such as hallways, elevators and stairs (37.9%). Due to the presence of people outside the hospital in these areas, confidential information should be treated with the utmost care.
In fact, one of the first field studies on the breach of confidentiality [10] already went in this direction. In their study, Ubel and Cols [10] made observations in 259 elevator trips to different hospitals and reported inappropriate comments that violated the patient`s secret in 14% of all trips. In our study, public spaces closely followed work areas (30.4%), medical consultations, treatment rooms and operating rooms. This widespread phenomenon varied from one department to another and also depended on the nature of the violation. Your medical records say a lot about you and should never be shared without your consent. If you still need information about the differences between confidentiality and privacy, or if you need immediate representation, you don`t have to look far. Discuss these issues immediately with a lawyer who specializes in medical malpractice. Relationship between cases of serious violation, medical services, area and personnel concerned No significant difference (p = 0.194) was found between whether or not a violation was observed and the gender of the person who made the observation.
One way to protect privacy is to prevent people from listening to conversations. Nurses may not realize that someone has heard or heard a discussion containing protected health information (PHI). Similarly, a statistically significant link has been established between certain categories of personnel involved in the identified offence and the nature of the infringement (Table 3). Specifically, the association was important for physicians (p =0.005) and nurses (p=0.002), with both groups most often involved in disclosing and/or accessing clinical and personal data (54.2% and 56.2%, respectively). A statistically significant association between law enforcement officers (p = 0.004) and the retention of clinical records and history (68.4%) was also found. By direct observation, our study examines real-world situations in which there is a breach of confidentiality in a tertiary hospital. To observe and collect these situations, we recruited students enrolled in the medical program of the University of Cordoba. Observers recorded their comments on standardized models during clinical placements in various departments: internal medicine; gynecology and obstetrics; pediatrics; emergency medicine; General and digestive surgery; maxillofacial surgery; Plastic surgery; orthopedics and traumatology; digestion; dermatology; rheumatology; Mental health; nephrology; pulmonology; neurology; and ophthalmology. With respect to the categories of breaches we found, many related to the retention of clinical records (type 1). In particular, there have been situations where medical records have been left open on nursing counters, where anyone passing by could see them, or left unattended on carts in the middle of hallways and other public spaces, and even lost in such unlikely places as changing rooms, classrooms or patient rooms. When it comes to electronic clinical records, there have been a number of cases where computers have gone unattended so that anyone can access them. Inappropriate destruction of records containing patient data, such as throwing garbage in public garbage cans without destroying bracelets, identifying stickers or patient lists, has occurred to a lesser extent.
A breach of confidentiality can take many forms, including in this case. For more information on patient privacy violations, see the 2016 article “Privacy Violations in Clinical Practice: What Happens in Hospitals?” by Beltran-Aroca and others. The number of remarks refers to the frequency with which the same type of offence committed by the same official was observed during the corresponding rotation. In this way, we were able to determine whether the breach of confidentiality was an isolated or repeated incident, which had an impact on the severity of the breach. Doe then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the facility and other facilities connected by personnel and property, alleging several pleas. These included breach of fiduciary duty to maintain confidentiality of personal health data, breach of contract, negligent hiring and training of staff, and breach of the duty to maintain patient secrecy, according to records. Healthcare professionals are required to protect the confidentiality of their patients. The obligation to ensure discretion and confidentiality in the medical profession is morally justified by the rights arising from relationships, and medical practice involves relationships of trust with patients and society. This duty of confidentiality is a fundamental basis for a certain degree of trust in the doctor-patient relationship [1, 2]. From an ethical point of view, respect for the principles of charity, non-malice and also autonomy is recognized as an important justification for maintaining patient confidentiality, which is based on a fundamental consideration of individuals [3]. Altisent [4] defines it as “the moral right to help people preserve the privacy of what they entrust to others who consequently acquire the obligation of secrecy.” The “unknown” category was excluded from the statistical analysis, partly for the reasons mentioned above, but also for the low frequency of privacy breaches detected in these services (5). Therefore, the calculations were made on the basis of 625 instead of the initial 630 observations, and a total of 515 observed violations were taken into account instead of 520.
Another major challenge, however, is privacy. Because you know the patient, it`s hard to see where your personal relationship ends and where your work rules begin. There is a chance that you will want to discuss their condition with them outside of the health environment. Or maybe you want to talk about it with another family member or friend. In addition to describing each breach of confidentiality, the observers recorded the total number of days and hours corresponding to each period, the areas in which the breach occurred, the day and time of the incident, the type of health professional responsible for the breach, and the gender and age group of the person involved. It seems important to note that observers were interested in collecting the type of occupational data as well as other anonymous socio-demographic data; Therefore, the identity of the subjects observed remained unknown to the researchers. Once all the models were collected, the recorded privacy violations were divided into three categories according to their description as follows: 1Custodie of anamnes and clinical records. 2Consultation/Disclosure of clinical/personal data. 3 Infrastructure breaches We found that breaches defined as serious (68.2%) (Table 4) and therefore those involving the disclosure of patients` clinical and personal data (type 2) were more frequent, particularly in meeting or work areas (75.8%). This is not surprising, as most patients are cared for in examination rooms, treatment rooms and operating rooms, where a large amount of data is processed. In contrast, incidents related to the retention of medical records (type 1) in nursing services were more common (80%) than minor offences (46.4%).
.
