CC BY 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2023; 50(04): 443-444
DOI: 10.1055/a-2103-4168
Communication

Evolving the Cybersecurity of Clinical Photography in Plastic Surgery

1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
3   Division of Plastic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
,
4   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
,
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Stephen B. Baker
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
› Institutsangaben
Funding None.

Abstract

Point-of-care photography and photo sharing optimize patient outcomes and facilitate remote consultation imperative for resident surgeons. This literature review and external pilot survey study highlight the risks associated with current practices concerning patient privacy and biometric security. In a survey of 30 plastic surgeon residents and attendings, we found that the majority took photos of patients with their iPhones and shared them with colleagues via Apple iMessage. These findings corroborate previous reports and highlight a lack of physician user acceptance of secure photo-sharing platforms. Finally, we frame a successful example from the literature in the context of a postulated framework for institutional change. Prioritizing the privacy and safety of patients requires a strategic approach that preserves the ease and frequency of use of current practices.

Authors' Contributions

D.L.S. was responsible for writing—original draft, methodology.

A.J. was responsible for writing—review and editing.

J.D.B. was responsible for writing—review and editing.

Z.K.H. was responsible for writing—review and editing.

A.I.A. was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, investigation.

S.B. was responsible for supervision and project administration.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. November 2022

Angenommen: 03. März 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
31. Mai 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 
  • References

  • 1 Chandawarkar R, Nadkarni P. Safe clinical photography: best practice guidelines for risk management and mitigation. Arch Plast Surg 2021; 48 (03) 295-304
  • 2 Elgabry M, Nesbeth D, Johnson SD. A systematic review of the criminogenic potential of synthetic biology and routes to future crime prevention. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020; 8: 571672
  • 3 Hazlitt v. Apple Inc.,. 543 F. Supp. 3d 643 (S.D. Ill. 2021) (United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois 2021).
  • 4 Marwaha JS, Landman AB, Brat GA, Dunn T, Gordon WJ. Deploying digital health tools within large, complex health systems: key considerations for adoption and implementation. NPJ Digit Med 2022; 5 (01) 13
  • 5 Underwood PY, Wyatt KD, Greaney C. et al. Mobile point-of-care medical photography: legal considerations for health care providers. J Leg Med 2020; 40 (02) 247-263
  • 6 Wyatt KD, Willaert BN, Pallagi PJ, Uribe RA, Yiannias JA, Hellmich TR. PhotoExam: adoption of an iOS-based clinical image capture application at Mayo Clinic. Int J Dermatol 2017; 56 (12) 1359-1365