Reference no: EM133664249
Case Study Scenario:
Your institution has been working on developing a patient portal for your electronic medical record (EMR). You are a member of the task force along with several other clinical and informatics professionals. The question of the type of access adolescents should have comes up for discussion. It is a challenging question both ethically and technically. Privacy and confidentiality concerns related to Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are already difficult, and "the typical adolescent patient can experience confidentiality issues at virtually every step of the process" (Anoshiravani et al., 2012, p. 409). But after careful consideration, your task force recommends a system permitting full access only to the 13- to 17-year-old adolescents whose parents are able to receive only non-confidential information.
This approach requires actively blocking access to certain information by parents and requires vigilance and ongoing effort to maintain. Full parental access would be permitted for unusual or complicated situations (e.g., intellectual disability or cancer) ideally customized with input from the adolescent (Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, 2014). You are working closely with your vendor to make this happen. Partway through the process, the administration informs you to stop work on this development and that no access will be granted to any adolescent patients-only adult patients over age 18. When asked for a justification, the administration cites legal concerns. They believe that if they cannot guarantee that no breaches in confidentiality will occur with a complex system, then they should not take any chances and, therefore, deny all access. They announce that this decision is final. You and your colleagues are deeply disturbed by this recent pronouncement. You wonder what you should do?
In a discussion post:
1. Examine the ethical dilemma
2. Propose possible alternatives
3. Hypothesize an ethical argument
4. Investigate, compare, and evaluate the arguments for each alternative
5. Choose the alternative you would recommend and defend it during discussion using ethical principles and evidence-based practice.