Physicians' Perspectives on HL7 Information Policy Sensitive Value Set: A Validation Study through Health Concept Categorization.

The Health Level 7 (HL7) organization introduced the Information Sensitivity Policy Value Set with 45 sensitive data categories to facilitate the implementation of granular electronic consent technology. The goal is to allow patients to have control over the sharing of their sensitive medical records. This study represents the first attempt to explore physicians' viewpoints on these categories. Twelve physicians participated in a survey, leading to revisions in 21 HL7 categories. They later classified 600 clinical data items through a second survey using the updated categories. Participants' perspectives were documented, and data analysis included descriptive measures and heat maps. In the first survey, six participants suggested adding 19 new categories (e.g., personality disorder), and modifying 25 category definitions. Two new categories and sixteen revised category definitions were incorporated to support more patient-friendly content and inclusive language. Fifteen new category recommendations were addressed through a revision of category definitions (e.g., personality disorder described as a behavioral health condition). In the second survey, data categorizations led to recommendations for more categories from ten participants. Future revisions of the HL7 categories should incorporate physicians' viewpoints, validate the categories using patient data or/and include patients' perspectives, and develop patient-centric category specifications.

Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study.

Physician categorizations of electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., depression) into sensitive data categories (e.g., Mental Health) and their perspectives on the adequacy of the categories to classify medical record data were assessed. One thousand data items from patient EHR were classified by 20 physicians (10 psychiatrists paired with ten non-psychiatrist physicians) into data categories via a survey. Cluster-adjusted chi square tests and mixed models were used for analysis. 10 items were selected per each physician pair (100 items in total) for discussion during 20 follow-up interviews. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Survey item categorization yielded 500 (50.0%) agreements, 175 (17.5%) disagreements, 325 (32.5%) partial agreements. Categorization disagreements were associated with physician specialty and implied patient history. Non-psychiatrists selected significantly (p = .016) more data categories than psychiatrists when classifying data items. The endorsement of Mental Health and Substance Use categories were significantly (p = .001) related for both provider types. During thematic analysis, Encounter Diagnosis (100%), Problems (95%), Health Concerns (90%), and Medications (85%) were discussed the most when deciding the sensitivity of medical information. Most (90.0%) interview participants suggested adding additional data categories. Study findings may guide the evolution of digital patient-controlled granular data sharing technology and processes.

Addressing Moral Injury in Emergency Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Moral injury, which is described as the psychological distress that results from actions, or lack of them, that go against one's beliefs or values, has become front and center among issues facing the practice of emergency medicine. Although it predates the COVID-19 outbreak, the pandemic has played a significant role in the increased rate of burnout, and even suicide, among emergency physicians. CASE REPORTS: This paper includes several clinical vignettes to highlight incidents that may occur in the emergency department (ED) when physicians experience violations of their moral codes, leading to distress and moral injury. These scenarios explore the conflicts posed between competing bioethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, end-of-life decision-making, medical futility, respect for self-determination (autonomy), resource scarcity and triage, duty to care, and physician impairment. DISCUSSION: There are significant similarities between moral injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with some authors describing moral injury as a subset of PTSD. We explore these commonalities to provide coping mechanisms and mitigation strategies for those suffering from moral injury. CONCLUSION: Physicians experiencing moral injury may benefit from the many available evidence-based treatments for PTSD to identify and manage moral injury and to support patient care and personal well-being.