An Exploratory Study on the Policies of Health Care Institutions in the New England Region of the United States Regarding Third-Party Access to Medical Records of Research Participants
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2013
An Exploratory Study on the Policies of Health Care Institutions in the New England Region of the United States Regarding Third-Party Access to Medical Records of Research Participants
Source document verification (SDV) is a basic and vital part of monitoring activities in clinical trials. In most cases, SDV involves the examination of medical records by a third party or an individual who is not an employee of the health care institution responsible for medical records storage and maintenance. It is therefore vital for health care institutions to ensure that their third-party access policies are compliant with applicable guidelines, laws, and regulations. A quantitative cross-sectional study design using a confidential online survey was used to examine policies of health care institutions in New England as they pertain to the legal and ethical aspects of third-party access to medical records of clinical research participants. A wide variation in institutional policies was found, and some were non-compliant with applicable laws, regulations, and/or basic ethical principles.
United Nations. The universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Published December 10, 1948. Accessed August 28, 2012.
3.
Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing; 2010. Council of Europe Treaty Series, No 5.
GostinLONassS. Reforming the HIPAA privacy rule: safeguarding privacy and promoting research. JAMA. 2009;301(13):1373–1375.
17.
National Research Council (US) Panel on Collecting, Storing, Accessing, and Protecting Biological Specimens and Biodata in Social Surveys. Protecting privacy and confidentiality: sharing digital representations of biological and social data. In: HauserRMWeinsteinMPoolRCohenB, eds. Conducting Biosocial Surveys: Collecting, Storing, Accessing, and Protecting Biospecimens and Biodata. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010:41–54.
18.
NosowskyRGiordanoTJ. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) privacy rule: implications for clinical research. Ann Rev Med. 2006;57:575–590.
19.
De ArmondED. A dearth of remedies. Penn St L Rev. 2008;113(1):1–53.
20.
SchonfeldTBrownJSAmouraNJGordonB. You don't know me, but …: access to patient data and subject recruitment in human subjects research. Am J Bioethics. 2011;11(11):31–38.
21.
AppariAJohnsonMEAnthonyDL. HIPAA compliance: an institutional theory perspective. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems; August 6-9, 2009; San Francisco, CA. Atlanta, GA: Association of Information Systems; 2009:1–9.
HodgeJG Jr. Health information privacy and public health. J L Med & Ethics. 2003;31(4):663–671.
24.
RothsteinMA. The Hippocratic bargain and health information technology. J L Med & Ethics. 2010;38(1):7–13.
25.
GreenlawCBrown-WeltyS. A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval Rev. 2009;33(5):464–480.
26.
BurgessCNicholasJGullifordM. Impact of an electronic, computer-delivered questionnaire, with or without postal reminders, on survey response rate in primary care. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:663–664. doi:10.1136/jech-2011-200884.
27.
TouvierMMéjeanCKesse-GuyotE. Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(5):287–296.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 201 CMR 17.00: standards for the protection of personal information of residents of the Commonwealth. http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/idtheft/201cmr1700reg.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed July 9, 2012.
