26 hours ago · Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others. The scope of this permission is described in a letter to the nation’s health care providers - PDF. >> Go To The Portal
Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others.
Full Answer
The doctors I've known and worked with wouldn't report anything to the police about your drug use; however, in many states, they are legally obligated to file a report on any children that might be abused or neglected due to your addiction (no money for food, left alone while you're out scoring, at home while you're high,etc).
The doctor call the police (and the DEA) to report the theft and suggest possible suspects. A psychiatrist has a patient in crisis at his office. Patient attacks psychiatrist and threatens staff. Someone will be on the phone with 911. And finally, the coroner will contact police when the report on his patient is complete.
Nope. That’s not our job. There are a limited number of things that we are permitted to disclose to the police. For example, if someone is deemed an imminent threat to themselves or others, they can be reported to the police for an emergency petition.
The doctor is not even allowed to tell police if you confess to them that you committed a violent crime in the past, only if you tell them you plan on committing one in the future. B Absolutely not. That would violate Dr. patient confidentiality, and HIPPA.
The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others.
In addition to professional ethical standards, most States have laws and/or court decisions which address, and in many instances require, disclosure of patient information to prevent or lessen the risk of harm.
Note that, where a provider is not subject to such State laws or other ethical standards, the HIPAA permission still would allow disclosures for these purpose s to the extent the other conditions of the permission are met.
Under these provisions, a health care provider may disclose patient information, including information from mental health records, if necessary, to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or any other persons who may reasonably be able to prevent or lessen the risk of harm.
Section 29 of the DPA permits you to disclose information but does not require you to do so.
If a disclosure is required by law, you should only disclose information that is relevant to the request, and where practicable you should tell the patient about the disclosure. The police have asked me for a statement for the coroner following the unexpected death of a patient.
The police have also asked me for details of the driver of the car that was involved in the accident. The Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the police to require information from anyone that may lead to the identification of the driver.
You should explain to the police that you have to comply with your professional duty of confidentiality as set out by the GMC. This says that information can only be disclosed with patient consent, or if it is required by law, or if the disclosure is justified in the public interest. The police should provide you with the relevant consent from ...
In the UK, blood may be taken from an incapacitated driver for testing in the future with the patient’s consent. The blood test should be taken by a forensic physician, unless this is not reasonably practicable, and not by a doctor involved in the clinical care of the patient.
Examples of statutes that require you to disclose or volunteer information to the police include the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Terrorism Act 2000. Another situation in which you are obliged to disclose information applies if in the course of your work you discover an act of Female Genital Mutilation ...
A patient in custody. A police officer attended a GP practice. The officer explained that a patient was being held in custody and had committed a serious crime. He asked for a copy of the patient's medical records.
As with any situation in which you are considering a disclosure in the public interest, the GMC says that you must balance the effect of a disclosure on the patient and on trust in doctors generally, against the potential benefits arising from release of information.
The patient was very upset during the most recent consultation and said media coverage of historic child abuse brought back memories of when he was abused as a child. He went on to confess that he had recently abused a 13-year old friend of his daughter's when she was having a sleepover at their house. He asked the GP not to tell anyone as he would never do anything like that again.
When you consider that failure to disclose would leave a risk so serious that it outweighs the patient's and the public interest in confidentiality, you should disclose relevant information promptly to an appropriate person or authority. Despite the man's reassurances, he had confessed to a serious crime and children may well be at risk.
He went on to confess that he had recently abused a 13-year old friend of his daughter's when she was having a sleepover at their house. He asked the GP not to tell anyone as he would never do anything like that again. The GP was shocked at the confession and contacted the MDU to ask if he should tell the police.
This allows the police, under certain circumstances, to require information from anyone, including doctors, which may lead to the identification of a driver alleged to have committed a road traffic offence. In fact, under the Act, it is an offence to fail to comply with such a police requirement. The GMC expects you to disclose information ...
Laws Concerning Disclosure of Impaired Drivers. Many states have enacted laws to address the problem of impaired drivers. Some of these laws mandate disclosure to motor vehicle authorities, while, in others, disclosure is voluntary. Some states require reporting for specific conditions but not for others [4].
Oregon, for example, has broad regulations. Its laws require physicians ( especially primary care physicians) to report conditions that impair sensory, motor, and cognitive functioning to state authorities [5], and they provide comprehensive standards for determining when a driver is impaired.
In other words, if informing driver’s licensing agencies (i.e., the Department of Motor Vehicles) about potentially dangerous drivers is not a legally sanctioned reason for breaching confidentiality, physicians may be unable to disclose.
Other states’ physician reporting laws are more permissive. Montana’s statute says that a “physician who diagnoses a physical or mental condition that, in the physician’s judgment, will significantly impair a person’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle may voluntarily report [italics added]” the patient [11].
Sometimes drivers act voluntarily in ways that make them unsafe, such as driving while intoxicated or exhausted. In these circumstances, we rightfully hold them responsible for injury or damage caused by their choices.
Lee Black, JD, LLM is a senior research associate for the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs at the American Medical Association in Chicago. Prior to joining the AMA, he was a staff attorney with the Legislative Reference Bureau in Springfield, where he drafted legislation for the Illinois General Assembly.