Literature DB >> 11251761

Shared expectations for protection of identifiable health care information: report of a national consensus process.

M K Wynia1, S S Coughlin, S Alpert, D S Cummins, L L Emanuel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Ethical Force Program is a collaborative effort to create performance measures for ethics in health care. This report lays out areas of consensus that may be amenable to performance measurement on protecting the privacy, confidentiality and security of identifiable health information.
DESIGN: Iterative consensus development process. PARTICIPANTS: The program's oversight body and its expert panel on privacy include national leaders representing the perspectives of physicians, patients, purchasers, health plans, hospitals, and medical ethicists as well as public health, law, and medical informatics experts. METHODS AND MAIN
RESULTS: The oversight body appointed a national Expert Advisory Panel on Privacy and Confidentiality in September 1998. This group compiled and reviewed existing norms, including governmental reports and legal standards, professional association policies, private organization statements and policies, accreditation standards, and ethical opinions. A set of specific and assessable expectations for ethical conduct in this domain was then drafted and refined through 7 meetings over 16 months. In the final 2 iterations, each expectation was graded on a scale of 1 to 10 by each oversight body member on whether it was: (1) important, (2) universally applicable, (3) feasible to measure, and (4) realistic to implement. The expectations that did not score more than 7 (mean) on all 4 scales were reconsidered and retained only if the entire oversight body agreed that they should be used as potential subjects for performance measurement. Consensus was achieved on 34 specific expectations. The expectations fell into 8 content areas, addressing the need for transparency of policies and practices, consent for use and disclosure of identifiable information, limitations on information that can be collected and by whom, individual access to one's own health records, security requirements for storage and transfer of information, provisions to ensure ongoing data quality, limitations on how identifiable information may be used, and provisions for meaningful accountability.
CONCLUSIONS: This process established consensus on 34 measurable ethical expectations for the protection of privacy and confidentiality in health care. These expectations should apply to any organization with access to personally identifiable health information, including managed care organizations, physician groups, hospitals, other provider organizations, and purchasers. Performance measurement on these expectations may improve accountability across the health care system.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11251761      PMCID: PMC1495179          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.00515.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  31 in total

1.  Medical records and privacy: empirical effects of legislation.

Authors:  D B McCarthy; D Shatin; C R Drinkard; J H Kleinman; J S Gardner
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Using Boolean reasoning to anonymize databases.

Authors:  A Ohrn; L Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 5.326

Review 3.  Geographically masking health data to preserve confidentiality.

Authors:  M P Armstrong; G Rushton; D L Zimmerman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Medical records. Enhancing privacy, preserving the common good.

Authors:  A Etzioni
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Confidentiality casualty. Patient billing printouts released in Kansas fraud case.

Authors:  J D Moore
Journal:  Mod Healthc       Date:  1998-09-14

6.  Health services research: public benefits, personal privacy, and proprietary interests.

Authors:  L O Gostin; J Hadley
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1998-11-15       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  State confidentiality laws and restrictions on epidemiologic research: a case study of Louisiana Law and proposed solutions.

Authors:  D M Vukadinovich; S S Coughlin
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 8.  Driving toward guiding principles: a goal for privacy, confidentiality, and security of health information.

Authors:  S A Buckovich; H E Rippen; M J Rozen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Does confidentiality have a future? The computer-based patient record and managed mental health care.

Authors:  K P Parsi; W J Winslade; K Corcoran
Journal:  Trends Health Care Law Ethics       Date:  1995 Winter-Spring

10.  Protecting privacy to improve health care.

Authors:  J Goldman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

View more
  10 in total

1.  Can you keep a secret? Measuring the performance of those entrusted with personal health information.

Authors:  J M Eisenberg
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Physician PDA use and the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Authors:  Paul E Pancoast; Timothy B Patrick; Joyce A Mitchell
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  A measure of trust in insurers.

Authors:  Susan Dorr Goold; David Fessler; Cheryl A Moyer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Electronic personal health records: should doctors worry?

Authors:  Matthew K Wynia
Journal:  Medscape J Med       Date:  2008-08-29

5.  Health literacy and communication quality in health care organizations.

Authors:  Matthew K Wynia; Chandra Y Osborn
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010

Review 6.  Patient perspectives of medical confidentiality: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar; Susan Mora; Jon F Merz; Nora L Jones
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Gaps, conflicts, and consensus in the ethics statements of professional associations, medical groups, and health plans.

Authors:  N D Berkman; M K Wynia; L R Churchill
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 8.  Evidence-based practice for mere mortals: the role of informatics and health services research.

Authors:  Ida Sim; Gillian D Sanders; Kathryn M McDonald
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2006-10-03

10.  Public trust in health information sharing: implications for biobanking and electronic health record systems.

Authors:  Jodyn Platt; Sharon Kardia
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-02-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.