Are any sort of patient discussions(even completely de-identified) a violation?

[shaq786]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just got to thinking I know we sometimes post about patients in community practice settings and give stories...even if they are completely de-identified...isn't there a clause or rule that says you can't discuss patients period?

 

[Ackj]

Case reports in published literature are okay, so i'm sure anything you say will be equally acceptable, as long as they are truly not identifiable. Saying "I work at XYX in this small town, and i have an 89 year old man and his 92 year old wife..." would probably be identifying the patients, so you can't do that. Even if you don't do it in the same post, mentioning where you work in a post from a month ago, and then mentioning the patients now... it can be pieced together.

 

[Praziquantel86]

No, people do it all the time. As long as they don't have a syndrome that exists in roughly 3 people worldwide and you discuss it with their neighbor, I think you're alright.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Find a list of Protected Information, and as long as you don't mention any of that then you're OK.

Examples include, obviously, name, address, SS #, age if above 89.

My fiance is also a resident and we talk about our patients all the time. Usually leaving out the pt's name is sufficient.

 

[owlegrad]

Find a list of Protected Information, and as long as you don't mention any of that then you're OK.

Examples include, obviously, name, address, SS #, age if above 89.

My fiance is also a resident and we talk about our patients all the time. Usually leaving out the pt's name is sufficient.

Which always confused me, because if you leave out the age when you normally include it...

 

[Ackj]

Which always confused me, because if you leave out the age when you normally include it...

I get what you're saying, but just because you're inferring that I'm talking about somebody over 89, doesn't mean I'm not talking about 54 year old and simply didn't mention the age. Also, knowing somebody is over 89 is far less specific than knowing they are 91.

 

[owlegrad]

I get what you're saying, but just because you're inferring that I'm talking about somebody over 89, doesn't mean I'm not talking about 54 year old and simply didn't mention the age. Also, knowing somebody is over 89 is far less specific than knowing they are 91.

True, perhaps I am over-thinking it.

 

[Phlame217]

Ask yourself if it contains either a directly identifying piece of information or enough information to derive an identity.

IE: a doctor A was recently sued and rightfully so by discussing a patient on Facebook with a fellow doctor B via writing on walls and used enough information that the patients cousin who was friend with doctor B was able to identify who it was. It led to a lot of drama and eventually a HIPPA suit.

 

[phathead]

No, people do it all the time. As long as they don't have a syndrome that exists in roughly 3 people worldwide and you discuss it with their neighbor, I think you're alright.

There was a spat about a MD on Twitter over the summer regarding this sort of topic. A couple people went off about the ethical and professional nature of it, while hinting that there were underlying HIPAA violations.

I have no idea how in the hell that would be, but I know there were some people seriously looking into this. Figure it's one of those things that will be more strictly outlined in the coming years with the increasing usage of social media sites.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I get what you're saying, but just because you're inferring that I'm talking about somebody over 89, doesn't mean I'm not talking about 54 year old and simply didn't mention the age. Also, knowing somebody is over 89 is far less specific than knowing they are 91.

Bingo