Is video taping the room setup, drapes, staff during surgery a violation?

[T. Racine]

We work in heart surgery and had a perfusionist video taping the room. She was warned a month ago that taping a patient was a violation and she erased it. Last week she was video taping the room layout except that it was during a case. No faces, body parts, or names were seen but we are wondering if this is still a violation. The party claims the pictures are used to train other agency perfusionists and for the protocol books but what say you? The supervisor was notified and shown a video of that person videotaping-is that a violation as well?

Thanks

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

I'm betting if you read the entire surgical consent, pictures/filming for educational purposes are included. This is why it's so important that everyone read anything they are signing and know exactly what they are allowing. However, this should be referred to your facility's risk/legal department. I'm also curious as to how the videos were taken- if they were using cell phones, that doesn't really speak to a legit, professional method of obtaining educational footage.

[NicuGal, MSN, RN]

If it is for educational purposes then it wouldn't be with personal phones or cameras. We have to use hospital equipment and the video doesn't leave the hospital until approved to do so. I'd bring it up with your manager.

[jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B]

Risk management question. But what stuck out at me was that this person was warned--so who told her to do the educational video to begin with? A self-started project? And that usually, if a facility was going to do an educational video, it is not while a case is going on.

Set up and room layout only can be done at any time. If something were to go wrong with the procedure, legal could and would have a field day with that video.

[Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN]

You need to contact you legal department....they usually need permission of the facility and if it was with a smart phone highly unlikey it is for their job.

[T. Racine]

I'm betting if you read the entire surgical consent, pictures/filming for educational purposes are included. This is why it's so important that everyone read anything they are signing and know exactly what they are allowing. However, this should be referred to your facility's risk/legal department. I'm also curious as to how the videos were taken- if they were using cell phones, that doesn't really speak to a legit, professional method of obtaining educational footage.

The supervisor "reported" that person to HIPAA! The Perfusionist supposedly went to the HIPAA officer who knew nothing of the incident and showed the officer the photos and video. There were no faces, extremities, limbs, body parts- only the room setup, drapes, her pump/equipment and staff as it related to equipment placement. She produced a current cardiac surgical permit signed by all patients that allows photos and videos. Supposedly the final decision from the officer is that NO HIPAA violation occurred. That perfusionist has elected to NO longer use video or photos as a teaching tool and has removed all previous photos from the orientation manual. The nursing supervisor who is over perfusion still thinks this is a violation of HIPAA, but doesn't the permit become a final determination in a court of law?!

[T. Racine]

BTW, that perfusionist with a perfect record over 17 years has resigned.

[amoLucia]

BTW, that perfusionist with a perfect record over 17 years has resigned.

I'd be curious what really went on behind those closed doors.

Either the perfusionist was sooooo PO'd she picked up all her toys and went home!

Or maybe she was 'offered' the opportunity to resign (rather than be fired) because of the previous incident?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall!!!

[NicuGal, MSN, RN]

Right, it allows photos and videos but not with a personal device. Hospitals have a department that have cameras and video cameras to be used for such purposes.

[T. Racine]

The perfusionist was cleared of any HIPAA violations after the photos were reviewed by the HIPAA officer and discussion with 2 administrators and the hospital attorney. She received a certified letter in the mail stating so. It appears the intent and content of the videos and pictures reviewed supported her practice of supplementing the orientation & protocol manuals. The nurse who did capture her videotaping in the room however, has apparently and inadvertently captured distinct images of the patient. It appears that for whatever the nurses real intention was, she has instead captured more incriminating video of the patient in the background whereas the perfusionists video did not. It also appears unofficially yet that the nurse will be reprimanded with consequences, and since the precedent has been set, possibly fired. The perfusionist accepted supervisory position in a major metropolitan heart program and left without a replacement but leaving the hospital with locums. Does this seem fair? Or??

[ixchel]

So..... In an effort to report the perfusionist for taking video on a personal device (which intentionally did not include the patient), the nurse took a video on a personal device without trying to keep the patient out of it???

[Rose_Queen, BSN, MSN, RN]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The nurse who recorded the perfusionist should not have taken matters into her own hands but immediately gone up the chain of command.