Fingerprinting patients?

We use finger prints to log in at work.

I suspect it will be so you can access your computer network, finger prints take the place of a swipe card

As for taking patients finger prints. That would be a major privacy violation

As for taking patients finger prints. That would be a major privacy violation

How so? Have you visited the Crosschx website?

Medical Identify Theft is a growing problem. Individuals obtain a person's medical insurance information, then use it to obtain medical care.

I read an article about this awhile back, and it causes a real mess, when it is stated in someone's medical records, that they have a medical condition, and have had it treated a certain way, and the REAL patient does not have an allergy to this or that, and has not had surgery for whatever.

It really get sticky, when HIPPA comes into play. When the real patient tries to track down who this person is, no one will give them any information, because even though this person has impersonated the real patient, HIPPA prevents any information to be given to the real patient, etc.

You can see the catch 22. This information forever remains on the real patient's medical records, and the real patient cannot have this information removed, because they need the permission from the impersonator.

Whenever I see a new physician, they always ask for picture ID, and I am happy that they do.

It is a real mess.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN (ret)

Somewhere in the PACNW

Medical Identify Theft is a growing problem. Individuals obtain a person's medical insurance information, then use it to obtain medical care.

I read an article about this awhile back, and it causes a real mess, when it is stated in someone's medical records, that they have a medical condition, and have had it treated a certain way, and the REAL patient does not have an allergy to this or that, and has not had surgery for whatever.

It really get sticky, when HIPPA comes into play. When the real patient tries to track down who this person is, no one will give them any information, because even though this person has impersonated the real patient, HIPPA prevents any information to be given to the real patient, etc.

You can see the catch 22. This information forever remains on the real patient's medical records, and the real patient cannot have this information removed, because they need the permission from the impersonator.

Whenever I see a new physician, they always ask for picture ID, and I am happy that they do.

It is a real mess.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN (ret)

Somewhere in the PACNW

While medical facilities computer installations and data are always at risk from the activities of hackers, and have on occasion been targeted by hackers, I am not aware of a significant incidence of individuals assuming a false identity in order to receive medical care (in particular a false identity already used by the true owner of such identity who happens to be another patient). Can you provide such statistics?

I read an article about this last year. No, I cannot provide statistics on this, but I can see it being a problem.

You go to a new doctor, they don't know you from a hole in the wall. You present you insurance card, receive care, etc. Get scheduled for surgery, etc. I just googled, "medical identity theft", and got two pages on the topic.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN (ret)

Somewhere in the PACNW

SafeChx | CrossChx

Touchette Regional Hospital Becomes First Illinois Hospital to Install SafeChx Identity Theft Protection System

It scans the index finger only and links that numerically encrypted information to your protected health care information.

It is voluntary according to the website.

This would not bother me as I scan my finger fifty times a day at work anyway.

How so? Have you visited the Crosschx website?

It would be a cold day in hell before I let a health provider have access to my finger prints unless they could show a valid need for it beyond having the most flash, advanced technology avaliable. Knowing that anyone with a log on has access to my account. Sure, use of computer systems is audited and people get their hand smacked if they are seen accessing computer records of people they are not caring for I have no issue with those being used by law enforcement when appropriate. I see no use for it in health care

It would be a cold day in hell before I let a health provider have access to my finger prints unless they could show a valid need for it beyond having the most flash, advanced technology avaliable. Knowing that anyone with a log on has access to my account. Sure, use of computer systems is audited and people get their hand smacked if they are seen accessing computer records of people they are not caring for I have no issue with those being used by law enforcement when appropriate. I see no use for it in health care

I'm confused...what do you think will happen if your fingerprint is on file?

Also, if you're caught accessing a patient's record that you aren't caring for, you get fired. It's a clear HIPAA violation.

I'm confused...what do you think will happen if your fingerprint is on file?

I neither know or care. I can see absolutely no therapeutic reason any health care provider would need my finger print.

Unless it was so they could boast that they have the most advanced flash technology

Also, if you're caught accessing a patient's record that you aren't caring for, you get fired. It's a clear HIPAA violation.

I know this seems a novel idea, there are actually nurses on this site who are not from America.

We don't do HIPAA and employers aren't allowed to fire people for a once off unless there is a clear pattern of other such behavior.

And besides, even if someone is fired it still doesn't undo the unauthorized access they have had to my patient information

Was I the only one who kept seeing the title as "Fingerpainting patients"? I thought it would be along the lines of patients who enjoyed their feces more than the average person and such.

I know this seems a novel idea, there are actually nurses on this site who are not from America.

My bad. Most of us do live in the United States so it's easy to forget.

Well, voluntary sounds good, as an idea. But if it's voluntary, then what good will it do exactly?

Like, obviously, someone assuming a fake identity is going to refuse to provide a fingerprint.

And we're an ER, we can't refuse treatment. I have people come in with no insurance, no form of identification (which is basically a 100% guarantee that the hospital won't get paid) and we still treat. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily, people shouldn't be denied emergency medical treatment due to inability to pay. But it's a problem for the hospital.

But I'm just not seeing the purpose of this technology.