Security and Confidentiality of Emrs

|

Security and Confidentiality of Electronic Medical Records |

|

|

Kristie Black |

HCA210 |

|

The doctor and patient relationship was never meant to be other than confidential and privileged and solely for the benefit of the patient. Patients expect it, or they would not be forthcoming. And doctors take an oath to keep their patient’s records safe and secure. This pledge of confidentiality, however, is now challenged by a world where computers rule and health information falls into many hands.

The Institute of Medicine issued a report on privacy of medical records in early February that fuels this concern of security. The records are meant to speed up access to a patient's health information, cut down on unnecessary care, and reduce medical errors. Access to the online digital record by researchers also means massive medical databases can be searched, shared, analyzed, and drawn upon.

Lack of confidentiality protections for a far more extensive national online record system would surely cause major concerns among most Americans. Despite the shortcomings, paper records make it a little harder to share patient information with another physician or facility. A centralized, integrated, electronic record with access to all Americans' files would not only contain more information, but its potential distribution could be measured in the millions, not just the few who could lay their hands on a chart. Would most of those unauthorized eyeballs be gazing for the patient's benefit? Don't think so.

One thing that is called for is an audit trail of just who accesses online records. In fact, there is no reason that patients themselves should not know who's seeing their records, rightly or wrongly, here or elsewhere in the world, where records are now outsourced for insurance review. It's also unseemly that marketers can buy pharmacy information about patients, so they can send them illness-specific advertising, and questionable that insurance companies...