We are struggling in health care with the inappropriate use of electronic media by health care providers, such as posting about patients or uploading photos taken from cell phones, etc. Therefore, I am currently working with a group where we are setting some very minimal standards, and next year we hope to add a little depth with this.
Here is how we have worded one of our provisions: "Posting or transmitting images, audio or video recordings, or messages via electronic media that can be reasonably interpreted as sexually demeaning to the current or former patient or key party." [Keep in mind the lawyers are working with us on this, and this particular piece is only about sexual misconduct, though we also plan to write one about boundary crossings.] We went back and forth with that term "electronic media," trying to identify a term that was broad and included most of what is currently used and most likely will be used in the future. For example, we didn't want to use "Facebook" as that medium will change in the future. Even "social networking" seemed a little too specific.
My question: Does electronic media work for this? If so, how might we define it?
I don't see the point of restricting it to "social media". What if someone decides to publish via an ordinary static Web site? Surely you want that possibility covered, and "electronic media" will take care of that.
EDIT: It's also occurred to me that the use of "electronic media" would also cover instances when someone sends another pictures of patients using a mobile (cell) phone. ISTR you mentioned this problem in the past, Kalleh.This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Social media, IMO, is Facebook and Twitter et al, which should be covered by electronic media.
I would agree with this, and that's why I wanted electronic media. However, our editors found a definition of "social media" online that incorporates everything from forums and discussion boards to wikis. We did talk about the camera photos, and she thought social media would include that, too, because you'd be uploading them on sites which would be considered social media.
because you'd be uploading them on sites which would be considered social media.
Sites like Facebook or Flickr, yes. However, there are plenty of other ways to upload photos to the Web that don't involve sites with social features. To repeat myself, what on earth is the point of restricting it to "social media"? Surely you don't want them taking any such photos at all, even if they are just shared with close friends?
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Maybe the lawyers will veto her narrow-mindedness! I agree that electronic media covers every possibility--of course, you also don't want them even printing such pictures and passing them around, which would not be electronic. I would probably say "via any medium, electronic or print" to cover every base. What's the matter with these people? Didn't they read those interminable HIPPA statements they are always asking us to sign?
It boggles the mind!
Wordmatic
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
No it shouldn't. Publication is an intention to communicate. If you use "communication" instead you run the risk of encountering the defence "well yes I put it on the internet but nobody actually looked at it, so that's OK".
I think you can overthink these things if you aren't careful.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
