Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27590300›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Confidentiality breaches in clinical practice: what happens in hospitals?

Cristina M Beltran-Aroca, Eloy Girela-Lopez, Eliseo Collazo-Chao, Manuel Montero-Pérez-Barquero, Maria C Muñoz-Villanueva

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cristina M Beltran-ArocaSection of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain. cristinabeltran@uco.es.
Eloy Girela-LopezSection of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain.
Eliseo Collazo-ChaoSection of Legal and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, University of Córdoba, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14004, Córdoba, Spain.
Manuel Montero-Pérez-BarqueroInternal Medicine Department, IMIBIC/Hospital Reina Sofia, University of Cordoba, Córdoba, Spain.
Maria C Muñoz-VillanuevaStatistic and Methodology Department, IMIBIC, Córdoba, Spain.
University of Córdoba · ESInstituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespect for confidentiality is important to safeguard the well-being of patients and ensure the confidence of society in the doctor-patient relationship. The aim of our study is to examine real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality, by means of direct observation in clinical practice.

methodsBy means of direct observation, our study examines real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality in a tertiary hospital. To observe and collect data on these situations, we recruited students enrolled in the Medical Degree Program at the University of Cordoba. The observers recorded their entries on standardized templates during clinical internships in different departments: Internal Medicine; Gynecology and Obstetrics; Pediatrics; Emergency Medicine; General and Digestive Surgery; Maxillofacial Surgery; Plastic Surgery; Orthopedics and Traumatology; Digestive; Dermatology; Rheumatology; Mental Health; Nephrology; Pneumology; Neurology; and Ophthalmology.

resultsFollowing 7138 days and 33157 h of observation, we found an estimated Frequency Index of one breach per 62.5 h. As regards the typology of the observed breaches, the most frequent (54,6 %) were related to the consultation and/or disclosure of clinical and/or personal data to medical personnel not involved in the patient's clinical care, as well as people external to the hospital. As regards their severity, severe breaches were the most frequent, accounting for 46.7 % of all incidents. Most of the reported incidents were observed in public areas (37.9 %), such as corridors, elevators, the cafeteria, stairs, and locker rooms.

conclusionsIn addition to aspects related to hospital organization or infrastructure, we have shown that all healthcare personnel are involved in confidentiality breaches, especially physicians. While most are committed unintentionally, a non-negligible number are severe, repeated breaches (9.5 %), thus suggesting a certain carelessness, perhaps through ignorance about certain behaviors that can jeopardize patient confidentiality.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDisclosureEthics, ClinicalPrivacyFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMalePhysiciansProfessional-Patient RelationsConfidentiality/privacyProfessional ethicsProfessional-patient relationship

Identifiers

PMID27590300
PMCPMC5009672
OpenAlexW2511183828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.