Confidentiality of Personal Health Information - Case Study Example

Confidentiality of Personal Health Information (PHI) Information is considerably vital when going about matters concerning security and health. In the purview of health, physicians have to obtain personal health information (PHI) before appropriate medical procedures can be undertaken. Even so, it is overly important to ensure that access to PHI is limited to only to authorized persons. In fact, the remarkable advance in technologies encountered over the years has intensified the risk of invading privacy and confidentiality of PHI. For instance, it is possible that other patients can tap into the PHI of their fellow patient via display screens, albeit when there are no appropriate measures. Failure to safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of PHI of patients can be catastrophic in the sense that the organization’s operations, assets or even the individual can be injured (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 199, 2004). Given this, a degree of attention is necessary to confidentiality of PHI. In this discussion, a pertinent case study will be analyzed by offering sentiments on what the physician would have done and advising the physician on security policies relating to PHI, as well as recommending measures to be put in place in order to prevent the devastating obtrusion upon the privacy of patients from happening again. Having been hired by the physician to provide a way forward on the issues surrounding the situation, it is critical to provide my sentiments on what I would have done if I were in his shoes. The first thing to do when the confidentiality of PHI is at stake is to report the matter to the appropriate authorities, such as the administration of the healthcare facility. The essence of doing this is not to implicate the staff member (s); rather, it serves to raise awareness across the hospital to make corrective actions in a timely manner. In fact, this is in accordance to the incident response policy that requires operational incident handling capability to be topnotch (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 200, 2006). I believe that by reporting the incident to the appropriate authority, the issue will be addressed comprehensively instead of dealing with it individually, which is a piece-meal approach to a critical shortcoming of this nature. The security policies pertaining PHI indiscriminately champion the dignity and respect of patients. Every individual has a legitimate privacy interest concerning the manner their private information is handled and, therefore, healthcare facilities are required put in place appropriate safeguards for PHI. Further, it is required that personal information, such as PHI, should be kept under conditions that adequately prevent unauthorized parties from accessing it. In fact, security safeguards on sensitive information, such as PHI, are more pronounced more than any other field. It then follows that PHI should be accessed by authorized individuals; however, they should exclusively utilize the PHI of patients objectively. It is incontestable that the sharing of PHI of patients is essential for the effective furnishing of health services. All the same, limits ought to be instituted in sharing PHI in order to prevent mishandling and misuse thereof. For instance, the healthcare facility should seek for means through which the personal privacy of patients will be protected (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2014). To that end, the computer screens displaying PHI of patients as well as the discussions in the waiting room presented a grave contravention of the policies aimed at protecting the privacy of patients concerning their PHI. The mere recognition of the patient’s privacy invasion is not adequate, but rather measures are essential to prevent the annihilating act from reoccurring. To begin with, the staff members need to receive adequate training. It is apparent that the staff member was not aware of the consequences of her discussion of private matters in the waiting room. However, with adequate training, it is unmistakable that the staff members will be cognizant of the policies relating to the handling of PHI and, therefore, the privacy usurpation is less likely to be instanced again. Besides, it is recommended that identification and authentication be employed in the information systems to ensure that only permitted personnel use devices that contain PHI of patients. By so doing, only trained and authorized will handle the PHI of patients and, in consequence, mishandling and misuse are preventable. What is more, continuous security assessments are necessary in the sense that the healthcare facility should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the measures out in place to protect the confidentiality of the PHI of patients (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 200, 2006). In case of any loopholes, corrective measures are essential to avoid situations where a breach of the patients’ privacy occurs before taking action. In conclusion, confidentiality of PHI is an integral part of the operation of a healthcare facility and serves as a way of protecting the privacy of the patients. In the case study, the computer screens showing the PHI of patients and the discussion of HIV testing procedures in the lobby was inappropriate. It is a severe instance of breaching patient privacy and on learning this, the physician needed to regard it as a matter of utmost urgency by reporting it to the appropriate authority like the administration of the organization. In essence, the policies regarding to the security of PHI advocate for respect and dignity towards all patients. As such, healthcare facility inevitably need to device ways of protecting the privacy of patients by upholding the confidentiality of PHI. One of the ways of doing this is by raising awareness among the staff members through adequate training. Also, the information system in the organization ought to have identification and authentication property, which is a sure way of keeping off unauthorized personnel from getting access to the PHI of patients and, therefore, ensuring patient privacy. To boot, an evaluation mechanism has to be put in place in regard to the security of PHI since some measures can become ineffective with time and corrective action are indispensable. References Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 199. (2004, February). Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. Gaithersburg, MD. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 200. (2006, March). Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information and Information Systems. Gaithersburg, MD. National Institute of Standards and Technology. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2014, January 17). Presidential Policy Directive: Signals Intelligence Activities. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary. Read More