188 results were found for your search terms Clinical record
The data protection regulations do not prevent the complainant from communicating the information he requests, regarding access to his clinical history, including the identity of the professionals, rank and professional category, who have accessed it.
The person making the complaint showed that her HC3 was accessed from CABO Centelles on four occasions, during the months of May 2022, despite not having been visited at that health center. In response, the DPD of the reported entity has confirmed that it is the material author of the accesses and has justified them by arguing that they were necessary to be able to respond to a request for information that this Authority notified to the aforementioned entity, within the framework of another complaint. filed by the same person complaining. In relation to this, during the prior information phase it was found that the accesses carried out by the personal data protection delegate to the complainant's HC3 were justified, given that they were carried out in the exercise of his duties. , and to respond to a request from this Authority. For all this, the filing of these proceedings is appropriate.
It is resolved to declare that the Department of Health has committed the infringement provided for in Article 83.5a), in relation to Article 5 RGPD, which contemplates the principle of accuracy of personal data, since the platform "My Health" of the complainant contains inaccurate information about health professionals who would have attended it in different medical consultations. The discord is also manifested between the information contained on the one hand in the HC of the health center and the HC3; and on the other hand, in the information that appears in the LMS viewer.
The person making the complaint complained of improper access to his or her medical records. It is resolved to archive the proceedings to the extent that within the framework of the prior information it has not been verified that any act that could constitute an infringement has occurred, while it has been sufficiently justified that the controversial access was carried out within the framework of the tasks assigned to the professional who carried it out.
The archiving of the actions is resolved since the reported entity has justified that the controversial access to HC3 of the complainant was caused by a typing error, within the framework of the RedCov project, in which certain parameters had to be consulted in various clinical stories.
The archiving of the facts related to alleged improper access to the HC3 of the complainant is resolved, since they were justified accesses. Likewise, it is also resolved to archive the facts related to the lack of conservation of the clinical history since the EBA Centelles has provided sufficient elements that allow to verify that the information is preserved. Regarding the complaints of the complainant related, on the one hand, to the fact that the reported entity would have proceeded to modify its patient file by assigning a new doctor of the head the complainant, and on the other hand, to the fact that a doctor would have introduced false medical notes, the facts are filed because no violation of the principle of accuracy is observed.
The claim should be dismissed, given that the claimed entity acted in accordance with law, dismissing the request for deletion formulated by the person here claiming, gave it a specific response and adjusted to that provided by the health legislation, taking into account the legal terms of conservation, and the importance of preserving its relevant health data to guarantee the person claiming adequate health care from any health center.
RA is dictated on the reported facts related to the call made by the CSMA in Castelldefels, having tried to locate the patient in the telephone numbers that appeared in his file, coinciding with those that were in the RCA. And, as they were not operational, and in the face of the emergency, they chose to call the number that was included in the section of observations (of their mother) provided by the patient himself.
The complaint is partially estimated as the Health Department did not respond in time to the request submitted by the complaining party, which was aimed at access to traceability and HC3 for a specific period of time. However, it is not necessary to require the Department to carry out any action since the latter responded extemporaneously to the request and provided the party requesting all documentation held by it.
Disapproval of the claim of guardianship by right to delete a report and other data from the clinical history on the grounds of the optional person.