Should Medical Students Track Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record? An Emerging Ethical Conflict

Gregory E. Brisson*, Kathy Johnson Neely, Patrick D. Tyler, Cynthia Barnard

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Medical students are increasingly using electronic health records (EHRs) in clerkships, and medical educators should seek opportunities to use this new technology to improve training. One such opportunity is the ability to "track" former patients in the EHR, defined as following up on patients in the EHR for educational purposes for a defined period of time after they have left one's direct care. This activity offers great promise in clinical training by enabling students to audit their diagnostic impressions and follow the clinical history of illness in a manner not possible in the era of paper charting. However, tracking raises important questions about the ethical use of protected health information, including concerns about compromising patient autonomy, resulting in a conflict between medical education and patient privacy. The authors offer critical analysis of arguments on both sides and discuss strategies to balance the ethical conflict by optimizing outcomes and mitigating harms. They observe that tracking improves training, thus offering long-lasting benefits to society, and is supported by the principle of distributive justice. They conclude that students should be permitted to track for educational purposes, but only with defined limits to safeguard patient autonomy, including obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and self-restricting review of records to those essential for training. Lastly, the authors observe that this conflict will become increasingly important with completion of the planned Nationwide Health Information Network and emphasize the need for national guidelines on tracking patients in an ethically appropriate manner.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1020-1024
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume90
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 31 2015

Fingerprint

medical student
electronics
health information
health
autonomy
distributive justice
audit
privacy
new technology
diagnostic
illness
student
educator
ability
history
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

@article{9c62ce1cdbb54fa8b92ccd357648b693,
title = "Should Medical Students Track Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record? An Emerging Ethical Conflict",
abstract = "Medical students are increasingly using electronic health records (EHRs) in clerkships, and medical educators should seek opportunities to use this new technology to improve training. One such opportunity is the ability to {"}track{"} former patients in the EHR, defined as following up on patients in the EHR for educational purposes for a defined period of time after they have left one's direct care. This activity offers great promise in clinical training by enabling students to audit their diagnostic impressions and follow the clinical history of illness in a manner not possible in the era of paper charting. However, tracking raises important questions about the ethical use of protected health information, including concerns about compromising patient autonomy, resulting in a conflict between medical education and patient privacy. The authors offer critical analysis of arguments on both sides and discuss strategies to balance the ethical conflict by optimizing outcomes and mitigating harms. They observe that tracking improves training, thus offering long-lasting benefits to society, and is supported by the principle of distributive justice. They conclude that students should be permitted to track for educational purposes, but only with defined limits to safeguard patient autonomy, including obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and self-restricting review of records to those essential for training. Lastly, the authors observe that this conflict will become increasingly important with completion of the planned Nationwide Health Information Network and emphasize the need for national guidelines on tracking patients in an ethically appropriate manner.",
author = "Brisson, {Gregory E.} and Neely, {Kathy Johnson} and Tyler, {Patrick D.} and Cynthia Barnard",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0000000000000633",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "1020--1024",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

Should Medical Students Track Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record? An Emerging Ethical Conflict. / Brisson, Gregory E.; Neely, Kathy Johnson; Tyler, Patrick D.; Barnard, Cynthia.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 90, No. 8, 31.08.2015, p. 1020-1024.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should Medical Students Track Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record? An Emerging Ethical Conflict

AU - Brisson, Gregory E.

AU - Neely, Kathy Johnson

AU - Tyler, Patrick D.

AU - Barnard, Cynthia

PY - 2015/8/31

Y1 - 2015/8/31

N2 - Medical students are increasingly using electronic health records (EHRs) in clerkships, and medical educators should seek opportunities to use this new technology to improve training. One such opportunity is the ability to "track" former patients in the EHR, defined as following up on patients in the EHR for educational purposes for a defined period of time after they have left one's direct care. This activity offers great promise in clinical training by enabling students to audit their diagnostic impressions and follow the clinical history of illness in a manner not possible in the era of paper charting. However, tracking raises important questions about the ethical use of protected health information, including concerns about compromising patient autonomy, resulting in a conflict between medical education and patient privacy. The authors offer critical analysis of arguments on both sides and discuss strategies to balance the ethical conflict by optimizing outcomes and mitigating harms. They observe that tracking improves training, thus offering long-lasting benefits to society, and is supported by the principle of distributive justice. They conclude that students should be permitted to track for educational purposes, but only with defined limits to safeguard patient autonomy, including obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and self-restricting review of records to those essential for training. Lastly, the authors observe that this conflict will become increasingly important with completion of the planned Nationwide Health Information Network and emphasize the need for national guidelines on tracking patients in an ethically appropriate manner.

AB - Medical students are increasingly using electronic health records (EHRs) in clerkships, and medical educators should seek opportunities to use this new technology to improve training. One such opportunity is the ability to "track" former patients in the EHR, defined as following up on patients in the EHR for educational purposes for a defined period of time after they have left one's direct care. This activity offers great promise in clinical training by enabling students to audit their diagnostic impressions and follow the clinical history of illness in a manner not possible in the era of paper charting. However, tracking raises important questions about the ethical use of protected health information, including concerns about compromising patient autonomy, resulting in a conflict between medical education and patient privacy. The authors offer critical analysis of arguments on both sides and discuss strategies to balance the ethical conflict by optimizing outcomes and mitigating harms. They observe that tracking improves training, thus offering long-lasting benefits to society, and is supported by the principle of distributive justice. They conclude that students should be permitted to track for educational purposes, but only with defined limits to safeguard patient autonomy, including obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and self-restricting review of records to those essential for training. Lastly, the authors observe that this conflict will become increasingly important with completion of the planned Nationwide Health Information Network and emphasize the need for national guidelines on tracking patients in an ethically appropriate manner.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938285937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938285937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000633

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000633

M3 - Review article

VL - 90

SP - 1020

EP - 1024

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 8

ER -