For medical institutions, this incident is a stern reminder: to protect patients' privacy, we must look at patients' medical records, we must guard against "internal ghosts" if we want to be optimistic about patients' medical records, and we must guard the relevant "hard bars" to prevent "internal ghosts".
Sure enough, there is an "inner ghost"!When people were deeply angry that the deceased Zhou Haimei's personal privacy had been leaked, and pointed the finger at the hospital involved, a notice confirmed their judgment.
According to the situation report issued by Beijing Shunyi** on December 14, it was Fu Moumou, an employee of the hospital involved, who leaked Zhou Haimei's medical information. For the purpose of showing off, he took advantage of his work to take photos of Zhou Haimei's personal medical records and send them to the WeChat group, which led to the spread of information. At present, Fu Moumou has been administratively detained in accordance with the law.
As far as Fu Moumou is concerned, being detained in accordance with the law is purely self-inflicted. Patient medical information is a personal privacy protected by law. Even if the patient has died, no unit or individual can disclose the patient's medical information without authorization, otherwise, it is a violation of law and infringement and should be punished according to law. China's Public Security Administration Punishment Law clearly stipulates that anyone who eavesdrops or disseminates other people's privacy shall be detained for up to five days or fined up to 500 yuan;where the circumstances are more serious, they are to be detained for between 5 and 10 days, and may be concurrently fined up to 500 RMB. I'm afraid that Fu Moumou will face more than these punishments. If Fu is a medical professional, then he may also be ordered to stop practicing or have his practice certificate revoked.
No matter what kind of punishment Fu Moumou receives in the end, the hospital involved will not be able to escape the blame. Fu Moumou is an employee of the hospital, and the patient's medical records were taken by him in the hospital, and the hospital involved is at least responsible for poor control.
The hospital involved will not be unaware of how to manage the patient's medical records. The "Provisions on the Management of Medical Records of Medical Institutions" has long defined the "hard bar": medical institutions shall establish and improve the medical record management system, set up a medical record management department or assign full-time (part-time) personnel to be responsible for the management of medical records and medical records. No one is allowed to alter medical records at will, and it is strictly forbidden to forge, conceal, destroy, snatch, or steal medical records. Medical personnel shall strictly protect patients' privacy, and prohibit the disclosure of patients' medical records for non-medical, teaching, or research purposes. Except for medical personnel who provide diagnosis and treatment services for patients, as well as departments or personnel responsible for medical record management and medical management authorized by the health and family planning administrative department, the Chinese medicine management department or medical institutions, no other institution or individual shall consult the patient's medical records without authorization.
There is no doubt that there was a problem with the management of medical records at the hospital involved. No matter how many questions there are and what they are, people have reason to ask: What did the person involved, Fu Moumou, do?How did he get Zhou Haimei's medical records?If he is a medical record manager, then he is a "self-thief". If he is not a medical records manager, does he have the qualifications and conditions to view a patient's medical records?If he doesn't have the qualifications and conditions, then why can he see the patient's medical records?Is there more than one "inner ghost"?
From this point of view, Fu Moumou cannot "carry everything". Next, the hospitals involved and their medical record managers should also be held accountable.
For medical institutions, this incident is a stern reminder: to protect patients' privacy, we must look at patients' medical records, we must guard against "internal ghosts" if we want to be optimistic about patients' medical records, and we must guard the relevant "hard bars" to prevent "internal ghosts".