A Framework for Tracking Former Patients in the Electronic Health Record Using an Educational Registry.

One challenge of contemporary medical education is that shorter lengths of stay and time-limited clerkships often interrupt a student's relationship with a patient before a diagnosis is made or treatment is completed, limiting the learning experience. Medical students sometimes use electronic health records (EHRs) to overcome these limitations. EHRs provide access to patients' future medical records, enabling students to track former patients across care venues to audit their diagnostic impressions and observe outcomes. While this activity has potential to improve clinical training, there is a risk of unintended harm to patients through loss of privacy. Students need guidance on how to perform this activity appropriately. This article describes an ethical framework for tracking using an "educational registry," a list of former patients housed within the EHR that one follows longitudinally for educational purposes. Guiding principles include obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and restricting review of records to those essential for training. This framework could serve as a foundation for institutions seeking to develop a policy on tracking former patients, and may facilitate research on the use of EHRs to improve medical education, such as reducing diagnostic error and promoting self-directed learning.

Defining a mismatch: differences in usage of social networking sites between medical students and the faculty who teach them.

BACKGROUND: Use of social networking sites (SNS) by medical students is increasing, and some students lack awareness of pitfalls arising from the intersection of social networking and medicine. Many institutions have developed guidelines on using SNS, but they are insufficient for students. Educators need new methods to train students on the appropriate use of this technology, but more information is needed before implementing change. PURPOSES: Differences in SNS usage between students and faculty were examined. The goal was to evaluate four content areas: SNS usage patterns, attitudes regarding activity on SNS, experience with patient interactions online, and awareness of institutional guidelines on use of SNS. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey took place at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, in 2012. Participants included all students and a cohort of faculty who teach them in a class on professionalism. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% by students (300/711) and 78% by faculty (31/40). Of the students, 94% use SNS, compared to 48% of faculty. Students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs. 27%), report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues' SNS profiles (64% vs. 42%), and ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs. 7%). Faculty were more likely than students to have been approached by patients on SNS (53% vs. 3%). Most participants were unlikely to conduct Internet searches on patients. CONCLUSIONS: Students are more likely than faculty to use SNS and use it very differently than faculty. Students would benefit from training on appropriate use of SNS. Topics that should be addressed include editing one's online presence, managing friend requests from patients, dealing with colleagues who post harmful content, conducting Internet searches on patients, and discussion of boundaries to identify potential harms associated with SNS usage. Differences in usage between students and faculty raise questions if faculty are well suited to provide this training.

Should medical students track former patients in the electronic health record? An emerging ethical conflict.

Medical students are increasingly using electronic health records (EHRs) in clerkships, and medical educators should seek opportunities to use this new technology to improve training. One such opportunity is the ability to "track" former patients in the EHR, defined as following up on patients in the EHR for educational purposes for a defined period of time after they have left one's direct care. This activity offers great promise in clinical training by enabling students to audit their diagnostic impressions and follow the clinical history of illness in a manner not possible in the era of paper charting. However, tracking raises important questions about the ethical use of protected health information, including concerns about compromising patient autonomy, resulting in a conflict between medical education and patient privacy. The authors offer critical analysis of arguments on both sides and discuss strategies to balance the ethical conflict by optimizing outcomes and mitigating harms. They observe that tracking improves training, thus offering long-lasting benefits to society, and is supported by the principle of distributive justice. They conclude that students should be permitted to track for educational purposes, but only with defined limits to safeguard patient autonomy, including obtaining permission from patients, having legitimate educational intent, and self-restricting review of records to those essential for training. Lastly, the authors observe that this conflict will become increasingly important with completion of the planned Nationwide Health Information Network and emphasize the need for national guidelines on tracking patients in an ethically appropriate manner.