Leaderboard

good catch, HIPAA, I stand corrected thank you

1. This person is dead and therefore not a patient; not sure if it would have anything to do with hippa. 2. Once the picture is on the internet, if there is no accompanying copyright tags, rights to the picture are lost.

Better question would be, does someone who has expired have HIPAA rights? http://www.hcpro.com/HIM-23324-866/Does-HIPAA-cover-deceased-individuals.html It would seem so!

No way to tell. Depends on who took it. Why they took it. Who released it. Why they released it. Who the patient was. Whether this was an actual patient or a re-enactment. If the patient is identifiable. Lots of factors. That said, I'd probably fire any of my people if they took that photo, whether they released it or not. And there is no such thing as HIPPA, unless you're talking about the Spanish word for a female hippo.

There is always concerns with radiation exposure, however, there is less exposure with CT scan than with plain films and also it's a bigger booboo if you miss something that could have easily been found on CT scan which is considerably faster than MRI and much easier to accomodate seriously ill patients (unless you have an open scanner which few hospitals around here do). And in the case of pulmonary embolus and things nuclear scans and thoracic CT's are your big diagnostic things. Miss that and you've got a BIG miss and a dead patient. I think I'd error on the side of caution and worry about causing issues later. What they fail to mention though is that the treatment with radiation and some chemotherapy drugs may cure the type of cancer they currently have, but they develop another type as a side effect. It's a risk/benefit ratio you have to look at. You WILL die from one, you MAY develop the other. Just my opinion, but I think you're looking at bigger choices there.

I'd venture to say I don't think it's real from the looks of it - however if it isn't I always put up (if I post pictures up from my classes or whatever) that there were no violations. It's just smarter not to post pics unless they are training pics and you specify them as such. There was an incident about a year ago I believe where a medic took a picture of a car involved in a fatal accident, which was posted on their myspace. It was discovered by the family and they were disciplined by the state. Funny thing was a very similar pic appeared in the newspaper and no one said a word about it. But as a general rule I steer away from pics unless needed to relay to docs condition of car, and then after they are seen are immediately deleted. I don't want them ending up where they shouldn't. Just be oh so careful of what you do and if it's just a training photo - tell us !

National Registry should ease the process - but some states still require you to take their state test even if you are, get a letter of good standing from your current state, a background check, etc (least that's how it is coming here). I don't know about New York, but I'd venture to say the best thing to do is just contact their EMS office and ask about reciprocity procedures. Then hit the chamber of commerce for each city you're thinking about and you can research the areas. There's several from NY on here, so it shouldn't be a big deal finding decent areas up there though I think it's more upstate for the school districts you desire.

Assuming this is real(it seems to be)- I have news for you- dead or not, this person(or more accurately, his family or anyone else who chooses to represent his interests) does indeed have a beef, if they so choose. Currently there is an issue with someone posting info on Facebook about a patient who was very well known around here for years. Homeless, alcoholic, and was around for 20+ years. Everyone in the business knew him. Someone decided it would be fun to reminisce about the situations this guy was in. Without getting into too many details, let's just say a interested 3rd party found out about these postings, and is pursuing legal action against all those who were involved in the discussion- especially the person who made the initial post. Individuals involved in the discussion are also being subjected to discipline from their employers for potential violations of privacy and protected health information laws. I'm no computer whiz, but potentially, there are ways of tracking these things. It's not worth risking it. Most of us have been guilty of taking pictures at accidents or particularly grotesque scenes- sometimes for training purposes, often times simply for their "wow" factor. Years ago, before the days of cell phones, digital cameras, and the internet, so many of us had something called a "ghetto cam"-a cheap, disposable camera for such things. This was long before we were so in tune with privacy issues, and although improper and intrusive, few outside this profession ever saw these pictures. Now, with a click of a button, millions can instantly have access to a picture such as the one in the archives. We need to be more careful.

Chances are, they took it from elsewhere on the internet anyway.

WOW, I am so sorry to hear about your trials and tribulations. I wish you the best of luck through it all, and know that you are in my thoughts.

Just wondering how this wouldn't be a pt. Not knowing the details of the call, lets call it a GSW to the head. Do you not still assess this person to determine their status? Would that not make them your pt?

I subscribe to an online medical journal and receive daily articles. Today's article is very interesting, especially to those hoping to become (or already are) doctors. "December 17, 2009 — Computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used and are an invaluable tool for medical imaging. However, the possible overuse of CT scans and the variability in radiation doses might subsequently lead to thousands of cases of cancer, according to findings from 2 new studies published in the December 14/28 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. . . Researchers estimated future cancer risks from current CT scan use in the United States, and projected that 29,000 future cancers will be directly attributable to CT scans that were performed in 2007. It is expected that the majority of these projected cancers will be caused by scans of the abdomen and pelvis (n = 14,000), chest (n = 4100), and head (n = 4000), and by CT coronary angiography (n = 2700)." What do you think about this. I would love to hear opinions. ~Sam

i was looking through the picture gallery and came up on this pic. Is this a violation of hippa or not?