Blogging Buzz Killer
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Two University of New Mexico Hospital employees have been fired for using their cell phone cameras to take photos of patients receiving treatment and then posting the images to a social networking Web site.
Director of Public Affairs Sam Giammo said Sunday the photos — mainly close-ups of injuries being treated in the Albuquerque hospital's emergency room over the past few months — were posted on an employee's private MySpace page.
Giammo said he's never heard of a similar incident at the University of New Mexico Hospital or any other hospital.
The patients in the photos could not be notified that their pictures had been taken because their faces and personal identifying features had been removed from the photos, Giammo said.
Giammo said the MySpace page could only be accessed by the employee's online friends, not the general public.
Chilling.
Director of Public Affairs Sam Giammo said Sunday the photos — mainly close-ups of injuries being treated in the Albuquerque hospital's emergency room over the past few months — were posted on an employee's private MySpace page.
Giammo said he's never heard of a similar incident at the University of New Mexico Hospital or any other hospital.
The patients in the photos could not be notified that their pictures had been taken because their faces and personal identifying features had been removed from the photos, Giammo said.
Giammo said the MySpace page could only be accessed by the employee's online friends, not the general public.
Chilling.
posted by scalpel at 10:44 AM
17 Comments:
This doesn't really bother me if in fact no personally identifying information remained in the photos. It appears this person is enthusiastic about his job. What's the difference between someone sharing a story about an ER experience that divulges no specific information about the patient and someone who adds to that story a few pictures? I do agree the employee should be reprimanded appropriately, perhaps even including termination, but for using his cell phone while on the job not for posting the pictures. We have a local nursing home under investigation by the State because a resident fell and fractured several vertebrae in her neck while the CNA who was supposed to be watching her was talking on her cell phone. I'm sure from a disciplinary standpoint this employee was terminated for the use of the camera/cell phone and not posting the images -- if indeed there was nothing in the image that could identify the patient. Obviously if there was identifying information HIPAA and other privacy issues arise.
Sure they were fired for violating hospital policy. However, that seem to be pretty hard to prove. If I had been caught I would have denied everything and let the hospital try to prove that the close up pictures actually matched patients at the hospital. It said that they investigated upon a tip. I would have made them prove the tip beyond doubt. Seems like these employees should be able to sue to get their job back.
I understand and respect that these photos could be informative for medical personnel for learning purposes but it IS a basic violation of privacy unless permission was given. Is there any way to get patient permission and perhaps note it on a chart? I haven't worked in the medical industry so I don't know the procedures. Speaking as a member of the public, I'd be more than happy to let a pic be taken if I thought it would help someone learn, as long as someone asked my permission and didn't give out personal details.
From what I read, the photos were still on their cell phones.
Guilty!
I agree with you 100% Mike. I would have approached this allegation the same way and denied any wrongdoing. I'm also curious what sort of ED staff this was -- tech, nurse, physician, etc. But again, I'm sure he was terminated based on the cell phone use and I imagine it was relatively easy to locate other employees who witnessed him taking pictures (or otherwise using) with his cell phone. My facility has a very strict cell phone policy. If you're caught using a non-company device you are subject to immediate termination, but may be warned, on a 2nd violation termination is mandatory. This even applies in break areas, but I work in a high security environment where cellular devices pose a significant threat if they are not secured and monitored by our enterprise security group.
I hear you about the cell phones. Although, I would have said they were sent to me and used the deny, deny, until you can't deny any longer defense.
Grandolspartyer, anyway I could get some enforcement in south Florida. We have a no cell phone policy, unless it is an emergency...it has never been enforced. Evidently, everybody in the center has an emergency at least 12 times a day because they are always on their cell phones. Oh the good ole days that when there was an emergency, your personal contacts called you office or department phone.
Mike, that's ridiculous. I mean a certain amount of flexibility is good for a workplace but don't over do it and use common sense. Most places have cell phone usage policies but I find often times management doesn't enforce. I'm pretty sure if there was a genuine emergency your family, etc. would know how to get a hold of you at work without your cell phone.
We have government facilities where we've actually installed high powered frequency jammers to prevent any unauthorized wireless transmissions. I've done contract work for a few companies who have investigated deploying these devices on their properties to prevent cell phone use as well. The main argument is always "What if there is an emergency and I can't call 911 or get help?" and that so far has kept my clients from using the technology. I believe some hospitals use different technology to block or severely limit cell phone signals as well, but jammers are not practical as any interference caused by cell phones would be considerably worse by a jammer on biomed equipment. In new construction there are ways to effectively eliminate any outside signal from entering the building without using a jammer, but this adds a lot of cost to building.
Dude, GOP, do you work at area 51 or something?
Did the pics include their faces or identifiable markers?
Or something.
I actually disagree that it's a "basic violation of privacy unless permission was given"... the media does this sort of thing all the time. If they can't obtain permission from someone they just blur out the faces.
I think these guys must have been fired for breach of contract, because legally I doubt they did anything wrong.
There's a significant expectation of privacy when you're seeking medical treatment. There isn't an expectation of privacy, however, when you're being arrested or entering a public court room. You do not see media publishing photos of people when they are someplace with an expectation of privacy as this is a violation of privacy.
The core issue here doesn't appear to be privacy since there was no identifying information in the photos. I do agree these individuals would have been fired for violating a corporate policy as I do not believe a violation of law occurred per se.
maybe I need to put black strips over the eyes the stick figures in my comics. No need to take any chances
It doesn't bother me at all if these images were indeed used in the way that they said happened, however I do think that warnings to all healthcare employees need to be established so that nobody slips up. Especially if your patients can find you via the internet and log onto your personal page. If they go on and they recognize themselves, even if the identifying info is deleted, they might get pissed off.
We should maybe have some sort of form in the hospital to ask patients if we can use pictures of injuries, X-rays, etc. of them on our websites as long as we remove the identifying info. This would clear up these blurred lines of what is right and wrong, and yet allow us to continue to use the internet at a great resource.
Heya's,
I thought I would chime in for clarity's sake. I'm a med student at the University of New Mexico, and this was a pretty big deal here in Albuquerque, as you may imagine. This actually happened a few weeks ago, apparently the hospital's quest to keep it from the media failed. At any rate, the pictures had patient faces, code tags, and some radiographs with MRN's were posted as well. As to the "anonymous tipoff", the word here is that a patients family member came across one of the pictures, and that started the whole chain of events.
Hospital policy didn't address cell phones or wireless gadgets or anything like that, until the emergency memo that went out last week banning cell phones in the ED.
Wow. That's amazing. Interesting, though, the story said the pictures were only viewable by those on his "friend's list" on what I assume was MySpace or something like that. But then again I think the article also said there was no identifying information - perhaps they mean the patient's names weren't posted - but if their faces and MRN's were available that is basically the same thing.
I contracted for a few hospitals doing various IT-related gigs over the years. It is amazing how available personal information is if you walk around and look for it. Most nurses do not properly secure their computers or mobile charting carts when they leave them unattended which leaves anyone able to access medical records. If a physician leaves a cart unattended you could potentially even order meds for a patient without any real verification, with maybe the exception of narcotics. In one instance I was contracted to complete an information assurance security audit. I was able to pose as an "IT guy" that no one had ever seen without a hospital ID badge and was given username/passwords from all levels of clinical staff by just asking. Hospitals, and most any corporate environment which uses IT for that matter, are just waiting to get nailed by serious computer breaches. Well, all you have to do is read the headlines as you so often see another large company was breached and thousands of consumer's private information was stolen. Most of the time those instances involve overlooking basic IT security principles.
What I can't believe is how concerned everyone is over cell phone use. Yes, so, my hospital does have "no cell phone signs" two to a wall, but all the doctors use their cell phones constantly. Texting and calling is more efficient and convenient than paging. I try not to take my phone around the vents or the critical cardiac patients, but my understanding is that it was the earliest versions of cell phones which interfered with other electronic devices; they got past that five or ten years ago, and I don't think there was every much evidence that it really impacted medical devices.
Post a Comment
<< Home