Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19843415›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2009

Violations of medical confidentiality: opinions of primary care physicians.

Bernice S Elger

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Confidentiality: a contested value.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Bernice S ElgerCenter for Legal Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Bernice.Elger@unige.ch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians should be able to distinguish situations where they need to protect confidentiality from those where they could be obligated to reveal information. Data are scarce concerning physician's attitudes in daily situations where violations of confidentiality are avoidable. Physicians should be aware of situations where patients are identifiable.

aimTo solicit participation of primary care physicians in a teaching intervention and to explore participants' opinions on violations of confidentiality. DESIGN OF STUDY: A questionnaire presented seven vignettes describing avoidable violations of confidentiality (for example, without patient consent a physician mentions a politician's illness their spouse). Participants answered on a scale of 0-3 (0=no violation and 3=serious violation). All contacted physicians were invited to a teaching session during which the study results were discussed.

methodThree-hundred and seventy-eight members of the Association of Physicians in Geneva (community physicians) working in primary care medicine, and 130 GPs and internists working at the University Hospital of Geneva (hospital physicians) took part. Physicians' answers were compared to responses from Swiss, UK, and other European law professors, and from 311 medical and law students in Geneva.

resultsBetween 4% (case 6) and 57% (case 2), of physicians thought that no violation occurred. Law professors attributed the scores to each case as 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3; the means of physicians were: 1.9, 1.4, 0.7, 1.4 (hospital physicians)/1.9 (community physicians), 0.4, 1.6, 2.6. In most cases, physicians' and students' answers were similar. A significantly higher percentage of community physicians than hospital physicians and students thought that a physician violates confidentiality if they provide the list of their patients to the police for the investigation of the theft of a purse in the waiting room.

conclusionPhysicians need to be fully aware of their obligations towards patient confidentiality. Avoidable breaches of confidentiality occur when colleagues and authorities (such as police and those in a judicial context) ask for information.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelConfidentialityPrimary Health CareEpidemiologic MethodsHumansPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID19843415
PMCPMC2751939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.