3 ms·
There are well-considered standards for patient anonymity. Saying "I had a patient with X disease" is not compromising the identity of the patient. Without that
by jonlucc 10y ago
There are well-considered standards for patient anonymity. Saying "I had a patient with X disease" is not compromising the identity of the patient. Without that, doctors couldn't teach medicine to med students or explain their cases at conferences.
- SilasX 10y agoFair enough, but I'm not sure that will be good enough for much longer. With bigger and better datasets it should be increasingly easy to de-anonymize someone based on just knowing something like that.
- rhizome 10y agoSomething like what, that a specific doctor has treated someone with a specific condition? I'm not sure that's enough metadata.
- Dr_tldr 10y agoI can confirm that's not and could never be a HIPAA violation. The information that Doctor X once ordered a blood test for John or Jane Doe with Result Z is totally fine. There's no non-HIPAA violating metadata that could make that information useful.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- iofj 10y agoThere are papers about de-anonimizing patient records and they show that for instance, patient records + facebook is definitely enough to fill in the names correctly.
- jonathankoren 10y agoYou do realize that with your standard of never-say-anything you're calling pretty much 200 years of medical study on violation.
- iofj 10y agoThat sounds great until you read the original stories detailing how they arrived at these standards. I mean it's utilitarian attitude on the surface, but the usefulness of medicine will be significantly degraded for everyone if patient records become public records.
- jonathankoren 10y ago> the usefulness of medicine will be significantly degraded for everyone if patient records become public records Huh? The reason why doctor-patient confidentiality exists is to encourage people to seek treatment without fear of embarrassment or retaliation.