Interesting, although I'm not sure why the author diverged from the main thesis into the privacy and confidentiality issue. After all, it would still be a potential breach of confidentiality even if all the chaplains were non-theists. Would've been better to stay on topic and advocate simply for the need to be recognized and filled rather than to try to make a case that something the author already doesn't appreciate (theist chaplains) is bad because chaplains shouldn't have access to full medical records. Off-topic. Chaplains either should or shouldn't have full/wide access - regardless of their theistic or non-theistic worldview. And on first take, I personally see absolutely zero reason for any chaplain of any stripe to delve into medical record details beyond what the patient him/herself shares or asks to have shared. [But that still doesn't make theist chaplains worse than what they are/were separate from HIPAA issues.]
We should be advocating for the provision of diverse spiritual care needs, period.