Scenario 1
In the first scenario, the health information administrator has used their status and knowledge to violate the privacy of a consumer. Jane has disclosed that the condition of the absent member was different from the one that was publicly known, disclosing information without consent.
State the problem: Consumer information was disclosed in a violation of privacy.
Check the facts: The RHIA had access to additional information about the consumer. The information was not disclosed to other individuals, and appendicitis was used as a justification for hospitalization. RHIA disclosed information to a third party.
Identify stakeholders: Both healthcare providers and their potential clients are stakeholders in this case.
Developing a list of options:
- Use non-disclosure agreements or other binding documents to enforce compliance
- Improve staff training regarding consumer privacy
Weigh the options: The legal option allows medical organizations to have more legal leverage against possible cases of sensitive information disclosure. It is better than the alternative of violating patient privacy (“Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for Healthcare Practices,” n.d.). However, it can be difficult or impossible to ensure compliance in settings outside of the workplace. Training the staff to be more capable of keeping information safe, however, will provide healthcare organizations with long-term change.
Make a choice based on steps 1-5: Based on the information accessed, option b is better.
Review and reflect: The change will contribute to fewer cases of disclosing sensitive information and can be the start of a cultural change within the organization.
Scenario 2
At least two ethical violations can be observed in the 2nd scenario. Dr. Smith has knowingly used examples of another surgeon’s work as his own, which violates the code’s 11th principle. The RHIA verifying this information willingly participated in this unethical practice.
State the problem: Use of fake professional experience and participation in unethical practices.
Check the facts: Dr. Smith used the patients an older surgeon operated on as examples of his work. James recognized Smith’s fraud but decided to go through with the fellowship application.
Identify stakeholders: The main stakeholders in this case are the American College of Surgeons. The organization has a responsibility before its clients, and its members to uphold standards regarding the conduct and qualifications of their members.
Developing a list of options:
- Deny Dr. Smith the fellowship position
- Introduce additional ethical checks into approving new members
Test the options: The first option deals with the issue of Dr. Smith’s lack of qualification. Comparatively, it cannot prevent similar acts from occurring in the future. Introducing other experts into the process, on the other hand, allows for to improve of the application process.
Make a choice based on steps 1-5: Option b seems more effective and beneficial.
Review and reflect: In systematically addressing the issue, this decision allows future fellowship candidates to be checked thoroughly.
Scenario 3
An RHIA chose to attend to personal matters instead of job responsibilities, violating the need to advance the RHIA profession.
State the problem: Martha used the time allotted for the HIPPA workshop as an opportunity to go shopping.
Check the facts: Martha was sent to San Francisco by her hospital. Given the ability to review footage in the future, Martha chose to purposely avoid a meeting. Martha went shopping at the time of the meeting.
Identify stakeholders: Martha’s hospital, Martha herself, and Martha’s customers all exist as the stakeholders in this case. The hospital expects Martha to learn and grow as a professional, while her customers directly benefit from her increased qualifications.
Developing a list of options:
- Create a system for monitoring attendance
- Punish Martha for abusing her work privileges
Test the options: Punishment could work to deter Martha as an individual from repeating this mistake. However, this would not help to systematically prevent such an occurrence. In addition, this can paint the hospital as strict with its employees.
Make a choice based on steps 1-5: In this case, it would be more advantageous to go with the option a.
Review and reflect: This would permit the hospital to create a framework for helping their employees uphold better standards.
Scenario 4
Erica, a RHIA lies about her qualifications for the sake of receiving a high salary job.
State the problem: Erica knowingly presents incorrect information to her future employer.
Check the facts: Erica earned a degree in one program, but claims she earned it in another.
Identify stakeholders: Erica’s future employer is the main stakeholder in this case.
Developing a list of options:
- Terminate Erica’s employment
- Allow Erica to prove her qualifications to the employer
Test the options: Termination would address the issue of Erica being potentially underqualified for her position. Alternatively, a test can enable her to retain the job and prove her capability.
Make a choice based on steps 1-5: Option A is chosen.
Review and reflect: It would be more appropriate to terminate Erica’s employment contract, as she willingly disclosed false information.
Scenario 5
Jack influences the decision of the board of directors for his benefit, exhibiting a conflict of interest.
State the problem: There is a conflict of interest connected with Jack’s work position.
Check the facts: Jack works for MediUpdate while also being on the board of directors. He uses his position to advocate for choosing MediUpdate, exhibiting a conflict of interest.
Identify stakeholders: The Health Information Management Association is the main stakeholder.
Developing a list of options:
- Remove Jack from the board of directors
- Remove MediUpdate from the list of potential candidates
- Prohibit board members from advocating for companies they have a stake in
Test the options: Removing Jack would take care of the immediate problem, but allow similar cases to emerge. Alternatively, removing MediUpdate would provide the same effects.
Make a choice based on steps 1-5: Option c would be the best choice.
Review and reflect: Option c creates a framework for addressing future conflicts of interest.
Reference
Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for Healthcare Practices. (n.d.). Jackson LLP Healthcare Lawyers. Web.