Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Confusing privacy rules may penalize doctors for doing their jobs

Lauren Vogel
CMAJ April 01, 2019 191 (13) E377-E378; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5732
Lauren Vogel
CMAJ
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Is it snooping for doctors to check up on past patients’ health records? A recent case in Saskatchewan shows the answer isn’t straightforward, and confusion about the rules may land doctors in hot water.

The province’s privacy commissioner reported that doctors inappropriately accessed the health records of Humboldt Broncos team members who were involved in a bus crash last April. In one case, a family physician checked the records of a team member who was their patient prior to the crash. Another case involved three doctors who provided emergency care to the team and accessed their records after the patients were transferred to another hospital.

These doctors believed they were still in the “circle of care,” or group of providers treating the team members. But according to the privacy commissioner, they had no right to access the records unless they were currently providing care to the patients. It’s a common misconception among doctors that’s complicated by a lack of clarity and consistency in privacy rules across Canada.

Figure

Saskatchewan doctors are calling for changes to restrictive privacy rules after recent breaches.

Image courtesy of Wavebreakmedia/iStock

“I would be much happier if I never heard the words ‘circle of care’ again,” says Bryan Salte, associate registrar and legal counsel for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. “I think that has produced a significant amount of confusion.”

In Saskatchewan, health care providers may only access health information without express consent if they need it to arrange, assess, provide, continue or support care. Unintentional breaches happen because people focus on the wrong questions, Salte says. “They aren’t asking: Do I need to know this? They’re asking: Am I within the circle of care?”

The college and the Saskatchewan Medical Association say this rule is too restrictive. They’re calling for reforms that would allow physicians to access health records for education and quality improvement. According to Dr. Susan Hayton, director of physician advocacy and leadership at the association, the rules are “not consistent with the way that most physicians provide care, and I don’t think that this is what most patients would want.”

For example, Salte says, “if a physician provides care to a patient and wants to see what the outcome was, it seems reasonable that they ought to be allowed to do that.”

Current privacy rules also pose barriers to regulators sharing information about physician misconduct or patients who are misusing opioids, Salte says. “Information stops at the provincial borders, but patients don’t.”

Adding to the confusion, privacy legislation varies across the country. Although these laws generally allow access to health information to support medical care, the specifics of who accesses what and how may be set by the custodian of the record in question. That may be a clinic, hospital or ministry. “Greater clarity in the legislation would be ideal,” says Dr. Dennis Desai, a senior physician advisor at the Canadian Medical Protective Association. “If the custodian doesn’t clear it up, there can be a lot of confusion for everybody.”

Although most privacy breaches are unintentional, the consequences can be severe. Doctors who run afoul of the rules may face complaints, legal action, dismissal and damage to their reputations.

Several Ontario arbitrators have upheld hospitals taking a zero tolerance approach to privacy breaches, holding that dismissal is the appropriate remedy for snooping in patient records. Health organizations may feel pressure to take a tough stance to mitigate their own liability for damages resulting from a breach.

Medical regulators tend only to discipline the most egregious cases, says Salte. For example, it’s clearly unacceptable to check the health records of a neighbor or your daughter’s boyfriend out of curiosity. But in cases where the breach is less clear, “at some point you have to rely upon the professional judgment of the physicians involved,” he says.

Footnotes

  • Posted on cmajnews.com on Mar. 14, 2019.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (13)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 13
1 Apr 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Confusing privacy rules may penalize doctors for doing their jobs
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Confusing privacy rules may penalize doctors for doing their jobs
Lauren Vogel
CMAJ Apr 2019, 191 (13) E377-E378; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5732

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Confusing privacy rules may penalize doctors for doing their jobs
Lauren Vogel
CMAJ Apr 2019, 191 (13) E377-E378; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5732
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • What the U.S. overturning Roe v. Wade means for Canada
  • Is one-way masking enough?
  • XE, XD & XF: what to know about the Omicron hybrid variants
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Health policy
    • Health technology
    • Professional conduct & regulation

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire