Can I record this? A scoping review of Australian hospital policies governing consultation recording.

Megan Prictor, Nikka Milani, Amelia Hyatt
{"title":"Can I record this? A scoping review of Australian hospital policies governing consultation recording.","authors":"Megan Prictor, Nikka Milani, Amelia Hyatt","doi":"10.1071/AH24306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective Recording consultations can benefit patients and healthcare providers, but advantageous recording practices are dogged by legal concerns. In Australia, relevant laws are poorly understood. We postulate that local policies are more important than law in guiding consultation recording. This study aimed to describe the availability and content of consultation recording policy in Australian hospitals. Methods We conducted a scoping review utilising JBI methods and our previously published protocol. We collected policies from Australian hospitals (April-October 2023) about the audio/video recording of patients, providers or others within the hospital. We reported findings descriptively and analysed policies' alignment with the law. Results Of the 43 hospitals examined, 17/43 (40%) had relevant policies, 17/43 (40%) had a partial policy and 9/43 (21%) had no policy. Policies were usually difficult to find and were stricter than relevant law. Conclusions When patients want to record their appointments, it can be hard to identify relevant hospital policy. Policies generally weigh against consultation recording and are more restrictive than Australian law allows. These results indicate that healthcare services should develop clear, readily available policies on recording, balancing patients' and providers' interests.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Recording consultations can benefit patients and healthcare providers, but advantageous recording practices are dogged by legal concerns. In Australia, relevant laws are poorly understood. We postulate that local policies are more important than law in guiding consultation recording. This study aimed to describe the availability and content of consultation recording policy in Australian hospitals. Methods We conducted a scoping review utilising JBI methods and our previously published protocol. We collected policies from Australian hospitals (April-October 2023) about the audio/video recording of patients, providers or others within the hospital. We reported findings descriptively and analysed policies' alignment with the law. Results Of the 43 hospitals examined, 17/43 (40%) had relevant policies, 17/43 (40%) had a partial policy and 9/43 (21%) had no policy. Policies were usually difficult to find and were stricter than relevant law. Conclusions When patients want to record their appointments, it can be hard to identify relevant hospital policy. Policies generally weigh against consultation recording and are more restrictive than Australian law allows. These results indicate that healthcare services should develop clear, readily available policies on recording, balancing patients' and providers' interests.

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
我可以录下来吗?澳大利亚医院管理咨询记录政策的范围审查。
目的记录会诊可以使患者和医疗服务提供者受益,但有利的记录做法受到法律问题的困扰。在澳大利亚,人们对相关法律知之甚少。我们认为,在指导咨询记录方面,地方政策比法律更重要。本研究旨在描述澳大利亚医院会诊记录政策的可用性和内容。方法我们利用JBI方法和我们之前发表的方案进行了范围综述。我们收集了澳大利亚医院(2023年4月至10月)关于医院内患者、提供者或其他人的音频/视频记录的政策。我们描述性地报告了调查结果,并分析了政策与法律的一致性。结果43家医院中,17/43家(40%)有相关政策,17/43家(40%)有部分政策,9/43家(21%)没有政策。政策通常很难找到,而且比相关法律更严格。结论当患者想要记录他们的预约时,很难确定相关的医院政策。政策通常会权衡咨询记录,并且比澳大利亚法律允许的限制性更强。这些结果表明,医疗保健服务应该制定明确的、现成的记录政策,平衡患者和提供者的利益。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pilot testing of the Research Impact Assessment Framework. The influence of specialty training selection criteria on medical students' career pathway choices in Australia. Integrating cybersecurity into healthcare quality governance: a policy perspective on artificial intelligence risks in Australia. Consumer involvement enhances allergy research: a National Allergy Centre of Excellence Consumer Engagement Framework. A document analysis exploring Australian health service expectations of competency and training in recent Advanced Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy roles.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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