Ethical dimensions of clinical data sharing by US healthcare organizations for purposes beyond direct patient care: Interviews with healthcare leaders.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1055/a-2432-0329
Brian R Jackson, Bonnie Kaplan, Richard Schreiber, Paul R DeMuro, Victoria Nichols-Johnson, Larry Ozeran, Anthony Solomonides, Ross Koppel
{"title":"Ethical dimensions of clinical data sharing by US healthcare organizations for purposes beyond direct patient care: Interviews with healthcare leaders.","authors":"Brian R Jackson, Bonnie Kaplan, Richard Schreiber, Paul R DeMuro, Victoria Nichols-Johnson, Larry Ozeran, Anthony Solomonides, Ross Koppel","doi":"10.1055/a-2432-0329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Empirically investigate current practices and analyze ethical dimensions of clinical data sharing by healthcare organizations for uses other than treatment, payment, and operations. Make recommendations to inform research and policy for healthcare organizations to protect patients' privacy and autonomy when sharing data with unrelated third parties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews and surveys involving 24 informatics leaders from 22 US healthcare organizations, accompanied by thematic and ethical analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found considerable heterogeneity across organizations in policies and practices. Respondents understood \"data sharing\" and \"research\" in very different ways. Their interpretations of these terms ranged from making data available for academic and public health uses, and to HIEs; to selling data for corporate research, to contracting with aggregators for future resale or use. The nine interview themes were that healthcare organizations: (1) share clinical data with many types of organizations, (2) have a variety of motivations for sharing data, (3) do not make data sharing policies readily available, (4) have widely varying data sharing approval processes, (5) most commonly rely on HIPAA de-identification to protect privacy, (6) were concerned about clinical data use by electronic health record vendors, (7) lacked data sharing transparency to the general public, (8) allowed individual patients little control over sharing of their data, and (9) had not yet changed data sharing practices within the year following the US Supreme Court 2022 decision denying rights to abortion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis identified gaps between ethical principles and healthcare organizations' data sharing policies and practices. To better align clinical data sharing practices with patient expectations and biomedical ethical principles, we recommend: updating HIPAA, including re-identification and upstream sharing restrictions in data sharing contracts, better coordination across data sharing approval processes, fuller transparency and opt-out options for patients, and accountability for data sharing and consequent harms.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2432-0329","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Empirically investigate current practices and analyze ethical dimensions of clinical data sharing by healthcare organizations for uses other than treatment, payment, and operations. Make recommendations to inform research and policy for healthcare organizations to protect patients' privacy and autonomy when sharing data with unrelated third parties.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews and surveys involving 24 informatics leaders from 22 US healthcare organizations, accompanied by thematic and ethical analyses.

Results: We found considerable heterogeneity across organizations in policies and practices. Respondents understood "data sharing" and "research" in very different ways. Their interpretations of these terms ranged from making data available for academic and public health uses, and to HIEs; to selling data for corporate research, to contracting with aggregators for future resale or use. The nine interview themes were that healthcare organizations: (1) share clinical data with many types of organizations, (2) have a variety of motivations for sharing data, (3) do not make data sharing policies readily available, (4) have widely varying data sharing approval processes, (5) most commonly rely on HIPAA de-identification to protect privacy, (6) were concerned about clinical data use by electronic health record vendors, (7) lacked data sharing transparency to the general public, (8) allowed individual patients little control over sharing of their data, and (9) had not yet changed data sharing practices within the year following the US Supreme Court 2022 decision denying rights to abortion.

Conclusions: Our analysis identified gaps between ethical principles and healthcare organizations' data sharing policies and practices. To better align clinical data sharing practices with patient expectations and biomedical ethical principles, we recommend: updating HIPAA, including re-identification and upstream sharing restrictions in data sharing contracts, better coordination across data sharing approval processes, fuller transparency and opt-out options for patients, and accountability for data sharing and consequent harms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国医疗机构为直接护理病人之外的目的共享临床数据的伦理问题:对医疗机构领导的访谈。
目标:实证调查医疗机构将临床数据共享用于治疗、支付和运营以外用途的现行做法,并分析其道德层面。为医疗机构的研究和政策提出建议,以便在与无关第三方共享数据时保护患者的隐私和自主权:方法:对来自美国 22 家医疗机构的 24 位信息学领导者进行半结构式访谈和调查,并进行专题和伦理分析:结果:我们发现各机构在政策和实践方面存在很大差异。受访者对 "数据共享 "和 "研究 "的理解大相径庭。他们对这些术语的解释从为学术和公共卫生用途提供数据,到为 HIE 提供数据;从为企业研究出售数据,到为将来的转售或使用与聚合商签订合同。九个访谈主题是:医疗机构(1) 与多种类型的机构共享临床数据,(2) 共享数据的动机多种多样,(3) 不轻易公布数据共享政策,(4) 数据共享审批流程大相径庭,(5) 最常见的是依靠 HIPAA 去标识化来保护隐私、(6) 担心电子健康记录供应商使用临床数据,(7) 缺乏对公众的数据共享透明度,(8) 允许患者个人对其数据共享的控制权很小,(9) 在美国最高法院 2022 年做出否认堕胎权的判决后一年内尚未改变数据共享做法。结论:我们的分析发现了伦理原则与医疗机构数据共享政策和实践之间的差距。为了使临床数据共享实践更好地符合患者期望和生物医学伦理原则,我们建议:更新 HIPAA,在数据共享合同中纳入重新识别和上游共享限制,更好地协调数据共享审批流程,为患者提供更充分的透明度和退出选择,并对数据共享和由此造成的伤害负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Aligning Residency Note Templates with CMS Evaluation and Management Documentation Requirements. Multisite implementation of a sexual health survey and clinical decision support to promote adolescent sexually transmitted infection screening. Optimizing Resident Charge Capture with Disappearing Help Text in Note Templates. Special Section on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Informatics: Collection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rural and Underserved Populations. The Effect of Ambient Artificial Intelligence Notes on Provider Burnout.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1