Clinicians and their cameras: policy, ethics and practice in an Australian tertiary hospital

Abstract

Abstract.Medical photography illustrates what people would prefer to keep private, is practiced when people are vulnerable, and has the power to freeze a moment in time. Given it is a sensitive area of health, lawful and ethical practice is paramount. This paper recognises and seeks to clarify the possibility of widespread clinician-taken medical photography in a tertiary hospital in Australia, examining the legal and ethical implications of this practice. A framework of law, state Department of Health policy and human rights theory were used to argue the thesis.Clinicians from 13 purposively chosen wards were asked to participate in an anonymous survey and confidential in-depth interviews. Questions were generated from the literature and local knowledge on the topics of 'occurrence', 'image use', 'quality of consent', 'cameras and technology', 'confidentiality', 'data storage and security', 'hospital policy and law' and 'cultural issues'. One hundred and seventy surveys and eight interviews were analysed using descriptive statistics and theme and content analysis, then triangulated for similarity, difference and unique responses.Forty-eight percent of clinicians surveyed take medical photographs, with the majority using hospital-owned cameras. However, one-fifth of clinicians reported photographing with personal mobile phones. Non-compliance with written consent requirements articulated in policy was endemic, with most clinicians surveyed obtaining only verbal consent. Labelling, storage, copyright and cultural issues were generally misunderstood, with a significant number of clinicians risking the security of patient information by storing images on personal devices.If this tertiary hospital does not develop a clinical photography action plan to address staff lack of knowledge, and noncompliance with policy and mobile phone use, patients' data is at risk of being distributed into the public domain where unauthorised publication may cause psychological harm and have legal ramifications for the hospital, its patients, and staff.

Should ‘smart phones’ be used for patient photography?

“…Often, these images are stored in the same location that personal images are stored, which also provides ample opportunity for confidential images to surface during a casual conversation that is unrelated to patient care, a practice clearly at odds with ethical conduct (7). With the current prevalence of the practice of using smart phones as clinical cameras, the issues of proper clinical image storage on smart phones must be resolved and an alternative to smart phone bans must be explored.…”

Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review (Preprint)

“…While the abusive use of clinical photographs has become an increasing preoccupation of health fund organizations [75], only 30% of patients worry about the future of their photographs [76], and our review reported that only slightly more than half of the authors encrypted their data. While 60% of specialists continue to store photographs of their patients in their personal cell phones [74,[76][77][78][79], one perspective could be to develop recourse to encrypt the medical image libraries [66].…”

Ethical implications of digital images for teaching and learning purposes: an integrative review

“…The very simplicity of modern digital photography has resulted, in some cases, in a relaxation of the usually applied guidelines of informed consent 9. An unequal power balance could exist between health care professionals and patients who may feel coerced into consenting to digital photography 10. Taking photographs of at-risk and vulnerable populations requires greater ethical responsibility 11.…”