Register      Login
Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Clinicians and their cameras: policy, ethics and practice in an Australian tertiary hospital

Kara Burns A C and Suzanne Belton B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Applied Sciences, RMIT University, Building 223, Level 1, Bundoora West Campus, Plenty Road, Bundoora, Vic. 3083, Australia.

B Menzies School of Health Research, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia. Email: suzanne.belton@menzies.edu.au

C Corresponding author. Email: kb@karaburns.com

Australian Health Review 37(4) 437-441 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH12039
Submitted: 8 January 2013  Accepted: 24 April 2013   Published: 19 June 2013

Journal Compilation © AHHA 2013

Abstract

Medical photography illustrates what people would prefer to keep private, is practiced when people are vulnerable, and has the power to freeze a moment in time. Given it is a sensitive area of health, lawful and ethical practice is paramount. This paper recognises and seeks to clarify the possibility of widespread clinician-taken medical photography in a tertiary hospital in Australia, examining the legal and ethical implications of this practice. A framework of law, state Department of Health policy and human rights theory were used to argue the thesis.

Clinicians from 13 purposively chosen wards were asked to participate in an anonymous survey and confidential in-depth interviews. Questions were generated from the literature and local knowledge on the topics of ‘occurrence’, ‘image use’, ‘quality of consent’, ‘cameras and technology’, ‘confidentiality’, ‘data storage and security’, ‘hospital policy and law’ and ‘cultural issues’. One hundred and seventy surveys and eight interviews were analysed using descriptive statistics and theme and content analysis, then triangulated for similarity, difference and unique responses.

Forty-eight percent of clinicians surveyed take medical photographs, with the majority using hospital-owned cameras. However, one-fifth of clinicians reported photographing with personal mobile phones. Non-compliance with written consent requirements articulated in policy was endemic, with most clinicians surveyed obtaining only verbal consent. Labelling, storage, copyright and cultural issues were generally misunderstood, with a significant number of clinicians risking the security of patient information by storing images on personal devices.

If this tertiary hospital does not develop a clinical photography action plan to address staff lack of knowledge, and non-compliance with policy and mobile phone use, patients’ data is at risk of being distributed into the public domain where unauthorised publication may cause psychological harm and have legal ramifications for the hospital, its patients, and staff.

What is known about the topic? While professional medical photography has been widely used for recording patient condition, evidencing care and teaching, little is known about the use of digital photographs taken by clinicians in Australian hospitals. Our research demonstrates that the ubiquitous nature of personal camera phones is encouraging clinicians to practice medical photography on personal devices. Clinicians who take photographs of patients have practical, legal and ethical issues to negotiate. Without careful management of these images, especially on personal devices, accidental and deliberate misuse is possible.

What does this paper add? This paper adds to knowledge of clinician-performed medical photography practice: no other study has reported on the subject across multiple wards in an Australian tertiary hospital. This paper defines key areas of inquiry relevant to the topic, documents poor knowledge and compliance with hospital policy and highlights areas of risk to patients, staff and hospital.

What are the implications for practitioners? It is likely that the behaviours and knowledge of digital photography documented in our research site are similar to that in other hospitals. Practitioners, managers and policy makers need to be aware of the ethics and regulations regarding consent, use, storage, disposal and ownership of patients’ digital images to ensure the practice follows ethical and legislated guidelines.


References

[1]  Cheadle K. Getting the full picture. Emerg Nurse 2008; 15 12–7.
| 18372781PubMed |

[2]  Dziadzio M, Hamdulay S, Reddy V, Boyce S, Keat A, Andrews J, et al A still image of a transient rash captured by a mobile phone. Clin Rheumatol 2007; 26 979–80.
| 16586047PubMed |

[3]  Karim R, Hage J, Ahmed A, Kalam J, de Wit F, van de Sandt M, et al Digital photography as a means of enhancing interconsultant communication in oncological cutaneous surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48 180–3.
Digital photography as a means of enhancing interconsultant communication in oncological cutaneous surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11910224PubMed |

[4]  Jones B. ‘Drop em blossom’ – Clinical photography and patient dignity. J Audiov Media Med 1996; 19 85–86.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2s7gtFehtQ%3D%3D&md5=54b70ed448b55208035dac097e8639b6CAS | 8945853PubMed |

[5]  Berle I. Clinical photography and patient rights: the need for orthopraxy. J Med Ethics 2008; 34 89–92.
Clinical photography and patient rights: the need for orthopraxy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c%2FnslKhuw%3D%3D&md5=9589fa04f742eb6062ef9900bbab7457CAS | 18234945PubMed |

[6]  Gardiner AP. Exposing the body−baring the soul. J Audiov Media Med 2002; 25 64–8.

[7]  Gilson CC. Confidentiality of illustrative clinical records. J Audiov Media Med 1984; 7 4–9.
| 1:STN:280:DyaL2c7ht1Ghuw%3D%3D&md5=528d4aa1babb339f40daadc2f6a55920CAS | 6693726PubMed |

[8]  Burns K, Belton S. ‘Click first, care second’ photography. Med J Aust 2012; 197 265
‘Click first, care second’ photography.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22938110PubMed |

[9]  Johns MK. Informed consent for clinical photography. J Audiov Media Med 2002; 25 59–63.
| 12150029PubMed |

[10]  Clever L. Obtain informed consent before publishing information about patients. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 278 628–9.
Obtain informed consent before publishing information about patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2svhslGisw%3D%3D&md5=2b5f0484f90a39705019fb77aaaf174bCAS |

[11]  The Australian Institute of Medical Biological Imaging. Consent for clinical imaging guidelines. AIMBI; 2007. Available at http://aimbi.org.au/practice/documents/Consent_for_Clinical_Images_Guidelines.pdf [verified December 2010]

[12]  Taylor DM, Foster E, Dunkin CS, Fitzgerald AM. A study of the personal use of digital photography within plastic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 37–40.
A study of the personal use of digital photography within plastic surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

[13]  Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2009.

[14]  Dean R. The value of Kant’s moral theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

[15]  National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement of ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHRMC; 2007.

[16]  Smith R. The importance of patients’ consent for publication. BMJ 1996; 313 16
The importance of patients’ consent for publication.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK28zgsVertQ%3D%3D&md5=35980985a6272eb64ef33e9583a7cd02CAS | 8664761PubMed |

[17]  Creighton S, Alderson J, Brown S, Minto C. Medical photography: ethics, consent and the intersex patient. BMJ 2002; 89 67–72.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD387hsVyjsg%3D%3D&md5=7365367b81fdc393edd22266d7e4337bCAS |

[18]  Rundle G. Rundle: the world changed this week. And it’s only Monday. Crikey (Melbourne); 29 November 2010. Available at http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/29/rundle-the-world-changed-this-week-and-its-only-monday/ [verified 3 May 2013]

[19]  Gilson CC. Ethical and legal aspects of clinical recording. Br J Hosp Med 1994; 52 225–9.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2M7itVaiuw%3D%3D&md5=89f838e60289a2d27a80fbdd70f7d002CAS | 7820320PubMed |