Private Electronic Devices

The first and perhaps most important aspect of this scenario refers to the distractions attributed to the use of private electronic devices (PEDs) in the workplace. The rampant use of these devices between patient checks can lead to disastrous consequences. Papadakos (2013) describes the use of these devices in healthcare settings as a significant challenge towards professional engagement with peers and patients. Additionally, the rampant use of the PEDs also poses a risk to patient safety. For example, a nurse who texts as he or she administers to a patient may make errors in patient care owing to the distraction. Papadakos (2013) claims that screen addiction, especially concerning social media undermines a professional's ability to perform to the best of their knowledge since their minds are preoccupied with irrelevant content much like the scenario suggests. For instance, upon realizing the patient is a celebrity, I proceeded to share the information rather than listen attentively to the patient's condition. It is the role of organizational, administrative organs to address the issue. However, most often than not, professionalism in the workplace demands those personnel remain focused on their work. Additionally, healthcare institutions demand patient-centered care, which requires full preoccupation with the patient rather than distractions such as Social media.

On the other hand, the legal framework surrounding the professionalism in the healthcare industry remains a vital consideration in this scenario. The American legal system safeguards the privacy of all its citizens in the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. It promotes the right to privacy as a fundamentally American principle. As such, the healthcare industry is obliged to conform to these regulations with a few exceptions. The HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) of 1996 is a piece of legislation that promotes the privacy rule in the healthcare industry (Agris & Spandorfer, 2016). The act encourages the continuous coverage of subscribers to insurance. It also reduces incidents of insurance fraud. However, the legislation's directive on the management of patient information through protection and confidentiality is relevant to the issue at hand. My decision to take pictures of the patient at different levels of undress and identifying information without consent represents a violation of the privacy rule. Firstly, the collection of this information using a personal device in operations outside the professional requirements of the job indicates little effort in protecting the patient's identity and information. Secondly, sharing this information with a friend also fails to adhere to the legal care standards of confidentiality required.

Taking these pictures with the understanding that celebrities are public property is a gross under oversimplification of the issue of confidentiality and consent. The privacy rules allow exceptions to the collecting and sharing of personal identifying information (Agris & Spandorfer, 2016). One of these exceptions allows the patient or a designated proxy to offer consent for the sharing of information. However, the patient was unconscious and therefore, unresponsive. As such, taking and sharing the photos violated the patient's privacy and denied him the opportunity to provide or refuse consent.

Cite this page