Health Information Professionals in a Global eHealth World: Ethical and legal arguments for the international certification and accreditation of health information professionals.

BACKGROUND

Issues such as privacy, security, quality, etc. have received considerable attention in discussions of eHealth, mHealth and pHealth. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to the fact that these methods of delivering health care situate Health Information Professionals (HIPs) in an ethical context that is importantly different from that of traditional health care because they assign a fiduciary role to HIPs that they did not have before, their previous technical involvement notwithstanding. Even less attention has been paid to the fact that when these methods of health care delivery are interjurisdictional, they situate HIPs in an ethical fabric that does not exist in the intra-jurisdictional setting.

METHOD

Privacy and other informatic patient rights in the context of traditional health care are identified and the role that HIPs play in this connection is analysed and distinguished from the role HIPs play in eHealth in order to determine whether the 2002 IMIA Code of Ethics provides sufficient guidance for HIPs in eHealth and associated settings. The position of inter-jurisdictional corporate eHealth providers is also touched upon.

RESULTS

It is found that in eHealth, mHealth and pHealth the ethical and legal position of HIPs differs importantly from that in traditional technologically-assisted health care because HIPs have fiduciary obligations they did not have before. It is also found that the 2002 IMIA Code of Ethics, which provides the framework for the codes of ethics that are promulgated by its various member organizations, provides insufficient guidance for dealing with issues that arise in this connection because they do not acknowledge this important change. It is also found that interjurisdictional eHealth etc. raises new ethical and legal issues for the corporate sector that transcend contractual arrangements.

CONCLUSION

The 2002 IMIA Code of Ethics should be revised and updated to provide guidance for HIPs who are engaged in eHealth and related methods of health care delivery, and to provide a model for a corresponding up-to-date revision of the ethical guidelines that are promulgated by IMIA's member organizations. Similar steps should be taken in the corporate sector so that the ethical rules that govern the working environment of HIPs in the eHealth setting will not pose ethical and professional problems. A possible solution in terms of accreditation and certification is outlined.