'Patients should not film without consent in healthcare settings'
In the digital era, we have abjectly surrendered our lives to our social media feeds. If it's not posted online, did it really happen?
Perhaps this mindset is what tempts patients to film medical consultations and procedures.
Currently, there is no unanimous stance across NHS trusts in the UK, and restrictions on filming are variable.
While patients are entitled to video documentation of their treatment, with consent, there is a growing trend of filming in hospital settings without seeking permission.
The Society of Radiographers has warned that videos being uploaded to social media are causing 'unease' among healthcare professionals.
This statement comes after an incident in the South of England, whereby a patient's relative recorded a cannula being inserted into an arm as they felt it would be 'entertaining on social media'.
The filming took place without obtaining the clinicians' consent, and rather than entertainment, it was perceived as a distraction from delivering care.
ALSO READ: 'We are heading towards a Victorian-era health crisis'
Hospitals serve to treat hundreds of patients, meaning that there is a high probability that filming in this environment is likely to capture sensitive information, especially when done without consent.
So, when patients begin filming medical content for the unintended purpose of entertainment, the question arises; is this ethical?
In hospital settings, people are at their most vulnerable, and there is an expectation for healthcare workers to uphold patient respect, dignity, and privacy.
Uploading content without consent compromises this and underlines why filming in hospitals is ethically questionable.
To ensure that trust between the patient and clinicians is not undermined, consent must be obtained before filming takes place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AMA and other medical associations are kicked out of CDC vaccine workgroups
NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials have told more than a half-dozen of the nation's top medical organizations that they will no longer help establish vaccination recommendations. The government told the organizations on Thursday via email that their experts are being disinvited from the workgroups that have been the backbone of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The organizations include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 'I'm concerned and distressed,' said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups. He said the move will likely propel a confusing fragmentation of vaccine guidance, as patients may hear the government say one thing and hear their doctors say another. One email said the organizations are 'special interest groups and therefore are expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population that they represent.' A federal health official on Friday confirmed the action, which was first reported by Bloomberg. The decision was the latest development in what has become a saga involving the ACIP. The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. CDC directors have traditionally almost always approved those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and greenlight insurance coverage for shots. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government's top health official, and in June abruptly fired the entire ACIP after accusing them of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He handpicked replacements that include several vaccine skeptics. The workgroups typically include committee members and experts from medical and scientific organizations. At workgroup meetings, members evaluate data from vaccine manufacturers and the CDC, and formulate vaccination recommendation proposals to be presented to the full committee. The structure was created for several reasons, Schaffner said. The professional groups provide input about what might and might not be possible for doctors to implement. And it helped build respect and trust in ACIP recommendations, having the buy-in of respected medical organizations, he said. Workgroup members are vetted for conflicts of interest, to make sure than no one who had, say, made money from working on a hepatitis vaccine was placed on the hepatitis committee, Schaffner noted. Also disinvited from the groups were the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Medical Association and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. In a joint statement Friday, the AMA and several of the other organizations said: 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.' They urged the administration to reconsider the move "so we can continue to feel confident in its vaccine recommendations for our patients.' Some of the professional organizations have criticized Kennedy's changes to the ACIP, and three of the disinvited groups last month joined a lawsuit against the government over Kennedy's decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for most children and pregnant women. In a social media post Friday, one of the Kennedy-appointed ACIP members — Retsef Levi — wrote that the working groups 'will engage experts from even broader set of disciplines!' Levi, a business management professor, also wrote that working group membership 'will be based on merit & expertise — not membership in organizations proven to have (conflicts of interest) and radical & narrow view of public health!' HHS officials have not said which people are going to be added to the ACIP workgroups. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Mike Stobbe, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
AMA and other medical associations are kicked out of CDC vaccine workgroups
NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials have told more than a half-dozen of the nation's top medical organizations that they will no longer help establish vaccination recommendations. The government told the organizations on Thursday via email that their experts are being disinvited from the workgroups that have been the backbone of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The organizations include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 'I'm concerned and distressed,' said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with ACIP and its workgroups. He said the move will likely propel a confusing fragmentation of vaccine guidance, as patients may hear the government say one thing and hear their doctors say another. One email said the organizations are 'special interest groups and therefore are expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population that they represent.' A federal health official on Friday confirmed the action, which was first reported by Bloomberg. The decision was the latest development in what has become a saga involving the ACIP. The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. CDC directors have traditionally almost always approved those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and greenlight insurance coverage for shots. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government's top health official, and in June abruptly fired the entire ACIP after accusing them of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He handpicked replacements that include several vaccine skeptics. The workgroups typically include committee members and experts from medical and scientific organizations. At workgroup meetings, members evaluate data from vaccine manufacturers and the CDC, and formulate vaccination recommendation proposals to be presented to the full committee. The structure was created for several reasons, Schaffner said. The professional groups provide input about what might and might not be possible for doctors to implement. And it helped build respect and trust in ACIP recommendations, having the buy-in of respected medical organizations, he said. Workgroup members are vetted for conflicts of interest, to make sure than no one who had, say, made money from working on a hepatitis vaccine was placed on the hepatitis committee, Schaffner noted. Also disinvited from the groups were the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Medical Association and the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. In a joint statement Friday, the AMA and several of the other organizations said: 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines.' They urged the administration to reconsider the move 'so we can continue to feel confident in its vaccine recommendations for our patients.' Some of the professional organizations have criticized Kennedy's changes to the ACIP, and three of the disinvited groups last month joined a lawsuit against the government over Kennedy's decision to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for most children and pregnant women. In a social media post Friday, one of the Kennedy-appointed ACIP members — Retsef Levi — wrote that the working groups 'will engage experts from even broader set of disciplines!' Levi, a business management professor, also wrote that working group membership 'will be based on merit & expertise — not membership in organizations proven to have (conflicts of interest) and radical & narrow view of public health!' HHS officials have not said which people are going to be added to the ACIP workgroups. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AI proliferation in healthcare shines light on HIPAA shortcomings
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI) in the healthcare space is skyrocketing. GlobalData analysis reveals that the AI market in healthcare is projected to reach a valuation of around $19bn by 2027. While the White House recently unveiled plans to 'remove barriers to American leadership' with an AI action plan, for now, entrants into the healthcare space providing AI tools to healthcare providers (HCPs), must comply with the US's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a regulation from 1996 that outlines rules around protecting patient healthcare data. Aaron T. Maguregui, partner at law firm Foley & Lardner told Medical Device Network: 'HIPAA was intended to scale with time and with technology. What I don't think HIPAA ever contemplated was the fact that AI would be able to essentially take in data from multiple sources, match it together, and create the potential for the reidentification of data that was never intended to be used for reidentification.' Technology has far outpaced regulation, and while Maguregui does not view HIPAA as being incompatible 'in and of itself', he states that it needs updating to account for the growing technology and compute power that exists, and how data is now being used to train AI. 'An AI vendor that provides a service to a HCP that is regulated by HIPAA is a subcontractor, and their role in healthcare is very regulated, and this becomes a somewhat limiting force for AI vendors trying to innovate and move the needle with their product, because their permitted usage and disclosures of the data as regulated by HIPAA is very restrictive,' Maguregui explained. 'It's restricted to the services that the vendor has agreed to provide, so any additional innovation, including, for example, additional training provisions the vendor may need, usually requires the HCP, and sometimes patients', consent.' Navigating HIPAA for HCPs and vendors Maguregui advises clients to start with a privacy impact assessment and bake in data governance from day one. 'On the provider side, it's important to know the types of data you have, who you're sharing data with, and what your responsibilities with respect to that data are,' Maguregui said. 'With virtual health exploding, and clinical intake going virtual, there are chatbots and workflows that are collecting data and information almost constantly, and it is important to understand whether information is regulated by HIPAA or by state law.' Having an awareness of these factors is especially important for HCPs that want to leverage an AI vendor, because they have to be able to communicate to that vendor what they need to comply with, because it will be the same regulation that the HCP has to comply with. Maguregui continued: 'In some cases, from an AI vendor's perspective, this may seem a bit unfair, because they have to rely on another party's assertion that they are complying with all of the laws they are required to comply with. 'The vendor then has to figure out whether they can comply with the relevant regulation and provide their service in compliance with the law and legally use the data at hand for purposes that are going to make their product better.' The direction of HIPAA regulation According to Maguregui, if the US cannot get on board with a single federal privacy legislation, then HIPAA should be expanded to cover the other entities that interact with health information. 'We have a desegregated regime in the US where the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tries to regulate when HIPAA does not regulate, and that leads to more confusion and results in uncertainty for vendors and HCPs alike in understanding what their roles and obligations are,' Maguregui said. 'My wish for HIPAA would be to expand and update it, to understand where technology has gone, where compute has gone, and to improve the ability for innovation, the ability for vendors to have better access to data that will help them create better products, and to ultimately improve the patient and provider experience, and healthcare overall.' "AI proliferation in healthcare shines light on HIPAA shortcomings" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
