Transparency of Health Informatics Processes as the Condition of Healthcare Professionals’ and Patients’ Trust and Adoption: the Rise of Ethical Requirements

Brigitte Séroussi; Kate Fultz Hollis; Lina F. Soualmia

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1702029

Yearbook of Medical Informatics, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Yearb Med Inform 2020; 29(01): 007-010
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702029

Editorial

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Transparency of Health Informatics Processes as the Condition of Healthcare Professionals’ and Patients’ Trust and Adoption: the Rise of Ethical Requirements

Brigitte Séroussi∗

¹Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, INSERM UMR_S1142, LIMICS, Paris, France

²Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France

,

Kate Fultz Hollis

³Oregon Health & Science University Department of Biomedical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Portland, Oregon, USA

,

Lina F. Soualmia

⁴Normandie Université, Univ Rouen, LITIS EA 4108, Rouen, France

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: To provide an introduction to the 2020 International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Yearbook by the editors.

Methods: This editorial provides an introduction and overview to the 2020 IMIA Yearbook which special topic is: “Ethics in Health Informatics”. The keynote paper, the survey paper of the Special Topic section, and the paper about Donald Lindberg’s ethical scientific openness in the History of Medical Informatics chapter of the Yearbook are discussed. Changes in the Yearbook Editorial Committee are also described.

Results: Inspired by medical ethics, ethics in health informatics progresses with the advances in biomedical informatics. With the wide use of EHRs, the enlargement of the care team perimeter, the need for data sharing for care continuity, the reuse of data for the sake of research, and the implementation of AI-powered decision support tools, new ethics requirements are necessary to address issues such as threats on privacy, confidentiality breaches, poor security practices, lack of patient information, tension on data sharing and reuse policies, need for more transparency on apps effectiveness, biased algorithms with discriminatory outcomes, guarantee on trustworthy AI, concerns on the re-identification of de-identified data.

Conclusions: Despite privacy rules rooted in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) in the USA and even more restrictive new regulations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation published in May 2018, some people do not believe their data will be kept confidential and may not share sensitive information with a provider, which may also induce unethical situations. Transparency on healthcare data processes is a condition of healthcare professionals’ and patients’ trust and their adoption of digital tools.

Keywords

Informatics, medical - Health Information Technology - IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics - Artificial intelligence - Data sharing - Ethics

Full Text

References

References
1 Friedman CP, Rubin JC, Sullivan KJ. Toward an Information Infrastructure for Global Health Improvement. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26 (01) 16-23
2 https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/15/artificial-intelligence-patient-consent-hospitals/ (last access on July 20th)
3 Na L, Yang C, Lo CC, Zhao F, Fukuoka Y, Aswani A. Feasibility of Reidentifying Individuals in Large National Physical Activity Data Sets From Which Protected Health Information Has Been Removed With Use of Machine Learning. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1 (08) e186040
4 Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008; 9 (05) 406-11
5 Kitchin R. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society 2014; 1 (01) 1-12
6 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai (last access on July 20th)
7 Kaplan B. How Should Health Data Be Used? Privacy, Secondary Use, and Big Data Sales. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2016; 25 (02) 312-29
8 Campos-Castillo C, Anthony DL. The double-edged sword of electronic health records: implications for patient disclosure. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (e1) e130-40