↓ Skip to main content

Confidentiality breaches in clinical practice: what happens in hospitals?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
369 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Confidentiality breaches in clinical practice: what happens in hospitals?
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0136-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina M. Beltran-Aroca, Eloy Girela-Lopez, Eliseo Collazo-Chao, Manuel Montero-Pérez-Barquero, Maria C. Muñoz-Villanueva

Abstract

Respect for confidentiality is important to safeguard the well-being of patients and ensure the confidence of society in the doctor-patient relationship. The aim of our study is to examine real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality, by means of direct observation in clinical practice. By means of direct observation, our study examines real situations in which there has been a breach of confidentiality in a tertiary hospital. To observe and collect data on these situations, we recruited students enrolled in the Medical Degree Program at the University of Cordoba. The observers recorded their entries on standardized templates during clinical internships in different departments: Internal Medicine; Gynecology and Obstetrics; Pediatrics; Emergency Medicine; General and Digestive Surgery; Maxillofacial Surgery; Plastic Surgery; Orthopedics and Traumatology; Digestive; Dermatology; Rheumatology; Mental Health; Nephrology; Pneumology; Neurology; and Ophthalmology. Following 7138 days and 33157 h of observation, we found an estimated Frequency Index of one breach per 62.5 h. As regards the typology of the observed breaches, the most frequent (54,6 %) were related to the consultation and/or disclosure of clinical and/or personal data to medical personnel not involved in the patient's clinical care, as well as people external to the hospital. As regards their severity, severe breaches were the most frequent, accounting for 46.7 % of all incidents. Most of the reported incidents were observed in public areas (37.9 %), such as corridors, elevators, the cafeteria, stairs, and locker rooms. In addition to aspects related to hospital organization or infrastructure, we have shown that all healthcare personnel are involved in confidentiality breaches, especially physicians. While most are committed unintentionally, a non-negligible number are severe, repeated breaches (9.5 %), thus suggesting a certain carelessness, perhaps through ignorance about certain behaviors that can jeopardize patient confidentiality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 368 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 80 22%
Student > Master 48 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Student > Postgraduate 15 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 4%
Other 44 12%
Unknown 149 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 75 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 62 17%
Psychology 14 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 3%
Other 43 12%
Unknown 154 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,358,108
of 25,376,646 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#233
of 1,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,474
of 346,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.