Single Physician Medical Practice

Personal health information is similarly discussed as Individual health information. The statistics collected concerning a patient include medical antiquity, insurance gen, demographic evidence, laboratory checks and outcomes, and supplementary records obtained by a medical practitioner (Harman & American Health Information Management Association, 2006). It helps in the process of identifying a patient and easily figure out the type of service patients ought to receive. The aim of this paper is to analyze the importance of personal health info, the protective measures that should be adopted in order to avoid breach of individual health facts, and security policies associated with the healthiness evidence.

The HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) of 1996, together with HITECH (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health) ensures that varieties of PHI can accumulate statistics from personalities (Shoniregun, Dube & Mtenzi, 2010). They are only required to divulge private information to health plan enrollees. That way, suppliers can discuss with their patients and health diplomacies can advocate for their potential clients. If a patient is in need of his or her health records, the data should be presented in an automated layout (Harman & American Health Information Management Association, 2006). Such information is confidential, thus should not to be sold, unless the data is used in research, public health information, and treatment. PHI, sustained by a protected entity, offers beings inscribed appeals to adjust alterations in the entity (Perun, Dimitriadis & Ontario, 2005).

In this case, it was very wrong for the staff member of the medical practice to disclose private information to all the patients in the waiting room. The privacy of the patient was violated and he or she had the right to sue the single physician medical practice. Information fragmentation plays a key role in separating the information of all the patients (Shoniregun, Dube & Mtenzi, 2010). The single physical medical practitioner who operated for nine months did not have the necessary measures to protect the medical information of patients. The health data is vulnerable and this ought to change. This breach of trust should be broken because it taints the image of the hospital.

The physician in this hospital is charged with the unlawful revelation of patient information, safeguarding of patient information, and impermissible use of equipment with patient information. Electronic health records require dutifully protection. It is enhanced by implementing necessary methodological proficiencies (Perun, Dimitriadis &Ontario, 2005). An assessment of a sanctuary threat scrutiny is required so as to address the encoding of the data stored, implementation of safety apprises and correction of security faults that is a risk controlling process (Dube, Shoniregun & Mtenzi, 2010).

Suitable practical competences should be implemented. This helps in protection and maintenance of electronic health information (Harman & American Health Information Management Association, 2006). The measures taken ensure that there is a steadfast preservation of the assurance of the individual evidence of health gen of both the old and new patients. The hospital should be able to make necessary provisions of enhancing high-tech measures to protect the health information of patients. Security gaps should be bridged according to the HIPPA Privacy Rule. This helps in the prevention of losing data and cyber-attacks. In the long run, the practice, information, people and technology is protected (Perun, Ontario & Dimitriadis, 2005).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the protection of personal health information is very important. It gives confidence to the patients treated in the medical facility. The hospital is able to maintain a good image of itself to the public in terms of its confidentiality with the data of patients. Information passed out to the public should only be when a study of a disease is needed and a vaccine ought to be found.

References

Harman, L. B., & American Health Information Management Association. (2006). Ethical challenges in the management of health information. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Perun, H., Orr, M., Dimitriadis, F., & Ontario. (2005). Guide to the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act. Toronto: Irwin Law.

Shoniregun, C. A., Dube, K., & Mtenzi, F. (2010). Electronic Healthcare Information Security. New York: Springer.