-
- QUESTION
DNP-830 Week 5 DQ 2 respond to Jeff
Some of the types of protected health information (PHI) that would be considered as ways to identify individual or patients and could potentially cause brief of the Privacy protection act if revealed to others that are not part of patients care or should not have information regarding patients’ health information are the following: Patients’ name, address or demographic, telephone number, email, social security numbers, medical record number, license or certification of insurance, device identification or serial number, IP address, biometric identifiers, photographic images, unique identifying number, characteristic, or code. The information can be in paper or electronic forms (Bowman & Maxwell, 2018). To help protect patient health information data management software can be utilized that could safeguard information and promote privacy according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) (Bowman & Maxwell, 2018).
Some of these data can be used in research, but individual identity must be protected (Dehghan, Kovacevic, Karystianis, Keane, & Nenadic, 2017). It is important to understand that Information privacy is a way to enhance individual autonomy regarding their health information (Dehghan et al., 2017). With this project to help promote medication adherence and lifestyle changes regarding hypertension, patient health information will be collected, but the publication of the data collected will be generalized without patient identifiers.
References
Bowman, M. A., & Maxwell, R. A. (2018). A beginner’s guide to avoiding Protected Health Information (PHI) issues in clinical research -- With how-to’s in REDCap Data Management Software. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.008
Dehghan, A., Kovacevic, A., Karystianis, G., Keane, J. A., & Nenadic, G. (2017). Learning to identify Protected Health Information by integrating knowledge- and data-driven algorithms: A case study on psychiatric evaluation notes. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.06.005
DNP-830 Week 5 DQ 2 respond to Paula
Review the types of data that are considered protected health information (PHI). Do you plan to collect any of this data during your project? How would the collection of this data affect your project (whether you plan to collect it or not)?
The HIPPA Privacy Rule of 1996 provides privacy of patient health information. Individually identifiable patient health information includes any information that could disclose the identity of an individual including name, birthday, social security number, medical record number. The Privacy Rule determines waiver authorization as determined by the IRB the reviews the effects of research protocols on the individual, to ensure that the patient’s rights and privacies are protected.
The DPI project I propose will not involve patient information, so HIPPA does not apply, however it does use human beings with minimal risk as protected by the Common Rule. Data will be collected from survey results of two Likert Scale Surveys regarding knowledge and confidence in the integration of CAM into their practice. The site of the project includes nurses of four Hospice Care Centers within a hundred miles of the research nurse. A survey will be completed by each group of nurses, prior to the intervention of an educational in-service. The random sample group chosen from all nurses will receive an immersion experience in CAM modalities. All nurses will receive the post intervention survey.
Azim, A. (2018). Common Sense: Rethinking the New Common Rule’s Weak Protections for Human Subjects. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(5), 1703–1737. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h &AN=132702857&site=eds-live&scope=site
| Subject | Nursing | Pages | 3 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Response to Jeff and Paula
Response to Jeff’s Work Discussion
Your work has an excellent flow and reflects a clear conceptualization and understanding of the topic on protected health information. The concepts covered on privacy protection are precise and it is evident that you understand how the operation facilitate patient care and data management for security reasons (Bowman & Maxwell, 2018). Generally, all the required elements have been comprehensively covered with more elaborate evidence from credible sources. It is clear that the sources are relevant to the topic in case and, therefore, your work is also a product of literature review. This is incredible. However, I think it would have been more appropriate and interesting if you chose to highlight the relevance of the subject and the upcoming project on patient information and data management on healthcare institutions.
Bowman, M. A., & Maxwell, R. A. (2018). A beginner’s guide to avoiding Protected Health Information (PHI) issues in clinical research -- With how-to’s in REDCap Data Management Software. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.008
Response to Paula
Your work is unequivocal. It is evident that you understood and hypothesized all the aspects required in the question before starting to work on it. It is important that all required elements in questions have been keenly handled and further supported with credible literature sources. It is even more challenging how you sought to analyze the issue and create a basis for argument on the efficacy and credibility of protected health information (PHI) and how the relevance improve patient outcomes (Azim, 2018). Nevertheless, I think it would, however, been better if you tried comparing the model to the most commonly used one in health institution to bring out the relevance of the topic towards improving global health care, and provide a claim on whether or not you feel this is the best way for United States and beyond. Otherwise, the work is a great piece.
References
|
Azim, A. (2018). Common Sense: Rethinking the New Common Rule’s Weak Protections for Human Subjects. Vanderbilt Law Review, 71(5), 1703–1737. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h &AN=132702857&site=eds-live&scope=site
Appendix
|
|