The Canadian Privacy Law Blog: Developments in privacy law and writings of a Canadian privacy lawyer, containing information related to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (aka PIPEDA) and other Canadian and international laws.
Recent Posts
- Privacy and location-capable cell phones
- They're watching and know who you are
- Grocery Store Loyalty Card Use is Strong Despite P...
- Your daily digital data droppings
- No electronic peeping in US federal jurisdiction
- HIPAA and electronic medical records in one hospit...
- EPIC Top Ten Privacy Resolutions for 2005
- Larry Ponemon: Top 5 privacy issues for 2005
- More hidden video cameras - this time in a correct...
- Is your e-mail private after your death?
On Twitter
About this page and the author
The author of this blog,
David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the
firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.
For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.
Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.
Privacy Calendar
Archives
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
Links
Blogs I Follow
Small Print
The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Privacy law is making hospitals lose patients and patient attitudes to privacy
icWales has an article ("Privacy law is making hospitals lose patients") on the the new practice of removing--in the name of privacy--patients' nameplates from above their beds and whiteboards from nursing stations. This has led to substandard care and literally losing patients, at least in Wales. The article cites a survey published in the British Medical Journal that examined the attitudes of patients to having their names made known in this way. (Ravindra Gudena, Stanley Luwemba, Amy Williams, and Lloyd R Jenkinson, Data protection gone too far: questionnaire survey of patients' and visitors' views about having their names displayed in hospital, BMJ, Dec 2004; 329: 1491.)
Based on a very simple questionnaire, most did not find the practice of posting patients names was invasive of privacy and most felt that patient names should appear over their beds:
Responses of 243 patients and 215 visitors to questionnaires about patients in hospital having their names displayed. Values are numbers; percentages (95% confidence intervals)
Patients Visitors Totals Have you seen the name board or not? Yes 173; 71 (65 to 77) 157; 73 (67 to 79) 330; 72 (68 to 77) No 70; 29 (23 to 35) 58; 27 (21 to 33) 128; 28 (24 to 32) Where should the name board be located? In the open 182; 75 (70 to 80) 160; 74 (69 to 80) 342; 75 (70 to 79) Hidden 4; 2 (–3 to 7) 12; 6 (0 to 12) 16; 3 (2 to 5) No preference 57; 23 (19 to 28) 43; 20 (14 to 26) 100; 22 (18 to 26) Do you mind having your name displayed on the name board (or, does this infringe on patients' privacy?) Yes 10; 4 (2 to 7) 21; 10 (2 to 5) 31; 7 (4 to 9) No 233; 96 (93 to 98) 194; 90 (84 to 94) 427; 93 (91 to 96) Should patients' names be displayed above their beds? Yes 236; 97 (95 to 99) 201; 93 (90 to 97) 437; 95 (94 to 97) No 7; 3 (5 to 8) 14; 7 (3 to 10) 21; 5 (3 to 7)
This raises a number of questions about the wisdom of certain privacy laws and practices in the clinical environment. I wonder whether one can imply consent to having one's name posted over their bed if a good survey strongly suggests that the majority of patients don't object and, in fact, think that posting their names is a good idea. If you couple this with an opportunity to "opt out" on the admitting form, you should be able to satisfy most of the people most of the time.
Labels: information breaches
The Canadian Privacy Law Blog is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
