Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148055›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

Balancing confidentiality and care coordination: challenges in patient privacy.

Ateya Megahed Ibrahim, Hassanat Ramadan Abdel-Aziz, Heba Ali Hamed Mohamed, Donia Elsaid Fathi Zaghamir, Nadia Mohamed Ibrahim Wahba, Ghada A Hassan, Mostafa Shaban, Mohammad El-Nablaway, Ohoud Naif Aldughmi, Taghreed Hussien Aboelola

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

10 authors.

Ateya Megahed IbrahimCollege of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkarj, Saudi Arabia. a.eleglany@psau.edu.sa.
Hassanat Ramadan Abdel-AzizCollege of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkarj, Saudi Arabia.
Heba Ali Hamed MohamedCommunity Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Mansoura University, Mansoura City, Dakahlia, Egypt.
Donia Elsaid Fathi ZaghamirCollege of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkarj, Saudi Arabia.
Nadia Mohamed Ibrahim WahbaCollege of Nursing, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkarj, Saudi Arabia.
Ghada A HassanPediatric Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Menoufia University, Shibin el Kom, Egypt.
Mostafa ShabanCommunity Health Nursing Department, College of Nursing, Jouf University, Sakaka, Al Jouf, 72388, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad El-NablawayDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, AlMaarefa University, P.O.Box 71666, 11597, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ohoud Naif AldughmiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Nursing, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia.
Taghreed Hussien AboelolaNursing Leadership Department, Nursing College, Northern Border University, Arar, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the digital age, maintaining patient confidentiality while ensuring effective care coordination poses significant challenges for healthcare providers, particularly nurses.

aimTo investigate the challenges and strategies associated with balancing patient confidentiality and effective care coordination in the digital age.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in a general hospital in Egypt to collect data from 150 nurses across various departments with at least six months of experience in patient care. Data were collected using six tools: Demographic Form, HIPAA Compliance Checklist, Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Tool, Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) Framework, EHR Privacy and Security Assessment Tool, and NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Validity and Reliability were ensured through pilot testing and factor analysis.

resultsParticipants were primarily aged 31-40 years (45%), with 75% female and 60% staff nurses. High compliance was observed in the HIPAA Compliance Checklist, especially in Administrative Safeguards (3.8 ± 0.5), indicating strong management and training processes, with an overall score of 85 ± 10. The PIA Tool showed robust privacy management, with Project Descriptions scoring 4.5 ± 0.3 and a total score of 30 ± 3. The DSA Framework had a mean total score of 20 ± 2, with Data Protection Measures scoring highest at 4.0 ± 0.4. The EHR assessments revealed high scores in Access Controls (4.4 ± 0.3) and Data Integrity Measures (4.3 ± 0.3), with an overall score of 22 ± 1.5. The NIST Cybersecurity Framework had a total score of 18 ± 2, with the highest scores in Protect (3.8) and lower in Detect (3.6). Strong positive correlations were found between HIPAA Compliance and EHR Privacy (r = 0.70, p < 0.05) and NIST Cybersecurity (r = 0.55, p < 0.05), reflecting effective data protection practices.

conclusionThe study suggests that continuous improvement in privacy practices among healthcare providers, through ongoing training and comprehensive privacy frameworks, is vital for enhancing patient confidentiality and supporting effective care coordination.

Indexed as

Care coordinationDigital healthHIPAA complianceNursesPatient confidentialityPrivacy frameworks

Identifiers

PMID39148055
PMCPMC11328515

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.