The standardized include will reduce possible issues revolving around patient or patient related comments on medical professional's pages resulting in administrative actions by RocWiki.
The privacy issues actually extend beyond just medical practitioners to a variety of health-related providers that submit claims electronically. Further, there are added ethical issues beyond the HIPAA regulations that restrict certain public speech by providers, which place them at a disadvantage in responding to unfair, malicious, or incorrect comments. Their response to any specific comment could be construed as confirmation of the client relationship, and thus a violation.
The "Include" should be placed before the Comments macro on any provider covered by HIPAA, such as doctors, dentists, medical facilities, etc.
The "Include" should be placed on each medical related directory page with the text below:
Our RocWiki listings for medical professionals should contain an included warning regarding comments about the professional on our wiki. We do that out of respect for the limits placed on those professionals by HIPPA regulations.
Notes and References
Should patients post reviews of doctors? from CharlotteObserver.com, June 2, 2009
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2009-08-19 11:40:54 The HIPAA idea is good but can we streamline it a bit? I would suggest cutting it down to something like, "Due to HIPAA Medical regulations, medical personnel are prohibited from discussing anything to do with patients. Please consider this when posting." I think it would be more concise and clear. Mentioning HIPAA specifics when we are not a medical site is touchy and unless we're going to post the whole entire law I think tightening it up would be a prudent consideration (this came from my father who is over here reading-he is a 60-year active physician). —PeteB
2009-08-19 13:09:46 Pete, I defer to Davis Wiki on this one, although I did shorten it a bit. They actually have medical professionals engaged in the wiki. They even have a dentist that monitors online questions and responds to them. This is no disrespect for your father, just that they have the combined and specific medical and wiki experience and concerns.
Many pages on this wiki reference the source of material without duplication of its content, as I did to HIPAA in the Include text. Since this is a serious issue, I don't feel that we need be too concerned about a few words. I have also created a Talk Page with additional info. Perhaps the technique used in NPOV, with a separate definition link might address your concerns. The Davis Wiki version does not even mention the posting side, but as information for the viewer of the comments. Many may assume something is true, factual, etc simply because there is no response, when that may be far from the truth. —BradMandell
2009-08-19 13:59:47 My concern is we *don't* have medical professionals engaged here except for my father and it feels like you're discounting what he says—even though he helped CRAFT the HIPAA law. Actually I think wording could be a big issue here. I think keeping it as you've made it above is PERFECT. Short & sweet—the more info we put in, the more questions can be asked that we can't answer. If people want to look up more info on HIPAA, provide a simple link for them to click on that leads them somewhere else that can be considered a truly authentic source on HIPAA concerns. —PeteB
2009-08-19 14:08:39 **PLEASE HOLD ON ANY DECISIONS HERE**—I am strongly concerned about only 2 people being involved in a serious issue. I am *insisting* that the other Admins get involved in this discussion. —PeteB
2009-08-19 14:15:25 Pete - it is an Include file and can be changed immediately and everywhere with one edit. It is based on the usage in the Davis Wiki. Take a BREATH!!!! —BradMandell
2009-08-19 14:22:31 You said to send a PLEASE HOLD note—that's what I'm doing. —PeteB
2009-08-19 14:52:35 I appreciate your concern for the medical community in this context. Many people are still unfamiliar with the restrictions placed on speech by physicians and we don't want to put them at an excessive or inappropriate disadvantage when a negative review is posted, since they can't actually address the concerns of the poster.
That said, verbose warnings are a big no no in web design, as I'm sure you appreciate too. If it's more than 20-25 words, it's just going to get lost and the page visitor will simply skip over the message.
Could we split the difference between Pete's ~20 word message and Brad's ~50 word message: HIPAA regulations prohibit medical personnel from discussing specific patients and their care. Please keep this in mind while reading and posting comments. —DaveMahon
2009-08-19 15:22:10 I like Dave's suggested wording. Thanks for bringing this up, Brad. —RottenChester
2009-08-19 15:41:03 I can go with Dave's wording. Thank you for the input —PeteB
2009-10-07 00:04:53 In an appt with my chiro there was a concern that our earlier HIPAA statement narrowed the medical fields too much so I switched it to the more simpler, broader covering version (Dave's earlier recommendation). —PeteB