Introduction
Health information of a given patient should be kept in a way that is easily accessible to the required personnel. Patient’s information should be treated with confidentiality by the health personnel based on the code of ethics of the medical profession. The information is usually in devices that allow easy accessibility when the information is required. These devices include; paper, images and/or optical disk. Health care facility should be in a position in order to provide a retention schedule for patient (California Civil Code, 2003, par. 2). The paper will address issues that are related to medical record retention law.
In a health care centre, the service provider should come up with a retention schedule for patient health data. The schedule should meet the obligation of the patient, investigator and any other legalized user. It should also comply with the authority and regulatory body and they must have official approved documents. In addition, the retention schedule ought to have a road map. The road map gives specification on the information to be maintained and the information that should not be stored. In addition, it should also give guidelines on the period on which the information should be kept and the most appropriate method of storage (California, Health and Safety Code, 2003, par. 6). Compliance programmes should contain written policies to cater for all types of documentation which includes; documents of clinical and health check up records, medical care records and a compliance document. This should comprise of all the records required to protect the unity of the compliance process. Moreover, it should also verify the efficiency of the programme, including the workers training documentation result, from internal enquiry result, in inspecting and monitoring amendment of the compliance agenda and self-disclosure.
Main body
Different states have different retention requirements, which are used to establish retention policies in their facilities. In the absence of certain state requirements for record retention, the provider ought to keep the information for a specific period. This period is specified by the state, although different states have different specification depending on the law of the state. A longer retention period is sensible in a situation where a false claim is given. The records provide prove of cases happening even after a period of seven to ten years (Finkelstein, 2003, par. 5).
There are several bases for keeping medical records. Firstly, a medical record is kept for patient’s health, so that it can assist the professionals in follow ups of the patient’s health condition. Secondly, the information is kept as a requirement for the state federal law; this mostly applies to the hospitals. An example of this is Medicare condition of participation, which requires the hospital to maintain medical record for a period of five years. Thirdly, medical board may have policies that requires specific information to be reserved, for example the Colorado state board of medical examination policy, requires record to be maintained for a period of not less than seven years (Olinde & McCard, 2005, p. 159-162). On the other hand, the state of California medical association agreed on indefinite retention of information or twenty years though retention for a period of ten years was considered to be sufficient. Different states have varying time duration for bringing a law suit for expert laxity. In state like California the legislative Act for the adult is usually one year after claimant discovery or up to three years after the suspected date of the damage. For those under the age of six years, the case is suspended up to an age of eight years (Schwartz, 2003, par. 3)).
Conclusion
In conclusion, health records for patients should only be accessed by the required personnel. The duration of storage differ in different states depending on the medical and federal law of the states.
Reference List
California, Civil Code. (2003). Sections 56.10-56.16. Web.
California, Health and Safety Code. (2003). Sections 123100-123149.5. Web.
Finkelstein, J. B. (2003). HIPAA minute (Abstract only). American Medical News, 46 (13), 9. Web.
Olinde, J. & McCard, H. (2005). Understanding the Boundaries of the HIPAA Preemption Analysis. Defense Counsel Journal, 72(2):158-169.
Schwartz, J. (2003). HIPAA compliance. CRN Mar 24, 2003(1038).