HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Aug 30, 2013 11:23:20 GMT -5
Update, haapai??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 4:29:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 11:34:46 GMT -5
The nurse violated HIPAA. Unless haapai also works in the medical field (for a provider or insurer), the co-worker did not violate HIPAA, simply shared information that she had learned with (apparently) malicious intent. (Which is not a crime, as far as I know.)
But that's only if the coworker being accused actually did what she's being accused of. It is very possible that she is back because an investigation was conducted and no evidence of her being involved was found.
It very well be that the one co-worker, finding his reputation ruined, is striking out at random to ruin another person's reputation. Actually, a healthcare worker is not allowed to access the records of a patient unless they are directly involved in the care of that patient. A hospital employee can't just start searching the logs to see what they can find out about people. That is why hospital workers who leak information about stars get fired.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Aug 30, 2013 11:53:37 GMT -5
No word yet, but Everything Cross Stitch and Jo-Ann's fabric sure seem to want my money.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Aug 30, 2013 12:38:47 GMT -5
Actually, a healthcare worker is not allowed to access the records of a patient unless they are directly involved in the care of that patient. A hospital employee can't just start searching the logs to see what they can find out about people.
That is why hospital workers who leak information about stars get fired.
Yeah, I got to see this in action at work.
We had a celebrity come into the ER of the medical center where I worked. He had been in a pretty major accident and was airlifted there. Over the next week or so, some of the hospital staff checked out his records even though they had no need. There was a mass firing and another round of HIPAA re-education.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Aug 30, 2013 14:33:46 GMT -5
The nurse violated HIPAA. Unless haapai also works in the medical field (for a provider or insurer), the co-worker did not violate HIPAA, simply shared information that she had learned with (apparently) malicious intent. (Which is not a crime, as far as I know.)
But that's only if the coworker being accused actually did what she's being accused of. It is very possible that she is back because an investigation was conducted and no evidence of her being involved was found.
It very well be that the one co-worker, finding his reputation ruined, is striking out at random to ruin another person's reputation. Actually, a healthcare worker is not allowed to access the records of a patient unless they are directly involved in the care of that patient. A hospital employee can't just start searching the logs to see what they can find out about people. That is why hospital workers who leak information about stars get fired. You are right. Hospitals are covered under "providers". Anyone who works for a provider or an insurer must follow HIPAA rules. What I was saying is that if haapai does NOT work in healthcare, then the co-worker almost certainly did not violate HIPAA.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 31, 2013 12:46:58 GMT -5
I feel bad for the do-worker....and I'm also nosy and trying to figure out what is in his files. My guess is either he used to be a she or else he has AIDS
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Aug 31, 2013 18:12:27 GMT -5
At a hospital that I worked at, there was a policy ( so we were told later on ) that if someone famous was admitted, they were registered under a fake name. So, "Famous Celebrity" became " John Doe. " Then, especially if it was a big news story such as the celeb being in an accident or a was being treated for a known disease, records would be kept of how many employees tried to look up " Famous Celebrity " by name.
We had a famous figure that had been in an accident and was treated at our hospital. Due to the hospital's policy, several people were fired. I can't write more about it here, but it was pretty unpleasant.
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Aug 31, 2013 18:17:24 GMT -5
There was a case at a local hospital which made the local tv news, wherein a very good nurse had gotten very emotional about a man she had had to treat, because he had been in a shootout with police, and had killed a law enforcement officer. She had to treat the accused in a unit because he had sustained gunshot wounds, and evidently took it quite badly.
She went home and posted on her facebook page " I looked into the face of a murderer today." It was a violation of her patient's privacy, and although everyone understood her feelings, the hospital had to fire her for the HIPPAA violation.
I don't know how the story made it onto the local tv news shows, but it did. I couldn't believe it.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,479
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 31, 2013 21:41:04 GMT -5
There was a case at a local hospital which made the local tv news, wherein a very good nurse had gotten very emotional about a man she had had to treat, because he had been in a shootout with police, and had killed a law enforcement officer. She had to treat the accused in a unit because he had sustained gunshot wounds, and evidently took it quite badly. She went home and posted on her facebook page " I looked into the face of a murderer today." It was a violation of her patient's privacy, and although everyone understood her feelings, the hospital had to fire her for the HIPPAA violation. I don't know how the story made it onto the local tv news shows, but it did. I couldn't believe it. I'm kind of surprised at the handful of interviews that have been done with the nurses who cared for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber in the days following his arrest. none gave their names, but still. totally the same idea as this nurse you describe.
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Sept 1, 2013 1:08:46 GMT -5
I don't understand how some of the details of these HIPPA violations make it on the 6:00 p.m. local news, but they crop up. I would especially be angry with the Boston Marathon Bomber, but it's unprofessional to give interviews about a patient, even if the caretaker hates what the patient did.
Actually, when I worked at Social Security, I had to interview three murderers ( insane but released, and one I knew had murdered her husband ). None were ever prosecuted. One told me right out, with her social worker sitting right beside her, that she had killed ----- somebody. I couldn't call the police. I talked with my manager about it. Evidently, the woman had been through the system already, was found to be insane, had been released from the mental hospital and was walking around free. Nowadays, she would have been prosecuted, but not back then. I was told I couldn't call the authorities on the woman that had done her husband in. She didn't confess, but I had documented proof that she hadn't married him, and claimed his large estate. It made me very angry.
I eventually got into a line of work where I didn't have to deal with the public anymore. I'm happier for it.
|
|
jinksd1
Established Member
Joined: Aug 25, 2011 7:25:50 GMT -5
Posts: 310
|
Post by jinksd1 on Sept 3, 2013 21:17:50 GMT -5
Update?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 3, 2013 22:02:55 GMT -5
No word from the hospital's privacy geek today. I'll give her a call again tomorrow but I suspect that unless her audit comes up completely blank, I will need to go to the hospital and file a formal request for an accounting of who has been in my records.
I do not know how long it will take to get those results.
I suspect that even if I find that I have been snooped on in the same way as my coworker, there will be no consequences for her or her nurse confederate. It's not easy for anyone involved in this situation to share information and some of the investigations that have already have been done may have been intentionally botched, bobbled, or limited in scope.
I've been wondering a lot about what type of identifying info is necessary to get these records.
Perhaps we are relying way too much on the honesty of persons associated with health care delivery.
The top two inches of every intake form that I have filled out for every medical care provider contains my name, current address, date of birth, social security number, and telephone number. It's crack for an identity thief.
The rest of the intake form is merely, potentially embarrassing. I'm not sure that the guys out there are aware of just how probing and suggestive the questions asked by gynecologists are. It's not information that you want in the hands of a malicious person.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 3, 2013 23:11:40 GMT -5
They may require photo ID from folks requesting their own records but they may have a different procedure for folks in the health care professions.
I think that the nurse in question had a code of some sort. It's utterly traceable, but it may have allowed her unquestioned access to records that she had no business accessing before someone started asking questions.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,711
|
Post by CCL on Sept 3, 2013 23:44:24 GMT -5
Actually, a healthcare worker is not allowed to access the records of a patient unless they are directly involved in the care of that patient. A hospital employee can't just start searching the logs to see what they can find out about people. That is why hospital workers who leak information about stars get fired. You are right. Hospitals are covered under "providers". Anyone who works for a provider or an insurer must follow HIPAA rules. What I was saying is that if haapai does NOT work in healthcare, then the co-worker almost certainly did not violate HIPAA.I think haapai was a patient. Why would her place of employment have anything to do with it?
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 3, 2013 23:56:19 GMT -5
That jives with what I've been told by the privacy geek. She offered to run an audit "before the holiday" and convey a negative result to me.
I was kinda surprised that she could do this much without me confirming my identity and signing lots of forms.
I don't know if her delay in getting back to me is due to her inability to run the audit, innocuous results, anomalous results, or cold feet regarding the strange way that I asked her to convey the results. My phone had no coverage that day, so I asked her to call back at a different number or convey the results by email.
I'll have to get in touch with her tomorrow and figure out the next step.
The odds that I was snooped on are kinda low. I'm insanely healthy. I under-consume medical care. I don't work particularly closely with the skank/snoop and I'm reasonably prudent regarding my pay stubs and leaving personal mail in my car. I should not have aroused the interest of the snoop.
On the other hand, about twenty years ago, long before HIPAA was enacted, I worked in a medical clinic and routinely read patient records for my own amusement.
So I have a sense of how addictive patient records can be for the virginal young folks.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Sept 4, 2013 0:22:42 GMT -5
I've worked at several medical facilities and if you are an employee, you usually just need the patient's name to find their information (If they are computerized like a hospital usually is). Having a birth date will help if the patient has a very common name (Mary Smith) or if the name is fairly common and the hospital is part of a larger health system that keeps records for it's various departments (outpatient, inpatient, labs, etc). This is usually only needed if you care that you are getting th right patient's data (I would think in this case, someone who is snooping probably isn't "QC"ing their work that they have the right person... they just want some dirt.
Usually, if you know about the patient's age, you can differentiate the common names without a birthdate (Say you pull up 5 Mary Smiths, 2 are in their 60s, 1 is 15, 1 is 35, and 1 is 48. If you know you are looking for a 48 year old, there you go).
A lot of health systems will have some data segregated from the rest (psych data is especially important). You may be asked to confirm that you need the access at time of request in the computer (Avoids the "Oh, I opened the wrong Mary Smith's chart on accident" defense. Um, no you didn't. You confirmed this was who you were looking for) or you could have to get manual access from the psych dept who will determine if you have a need to know (In this case, it gets weird because you see their other info but not psych appts, stuff. So, you know something is missing out of the records but aren't sure what).
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Sept 4, 2013 0:42:48 GMT -5
You are right. Hospitals are covered under "providers". Anyone who works for a provider or an insurer must follow HIPAA rules. What I was saying is that if haapai does NOT work in healthcare, then the co-worker almost certainly did not violate HIPAA. I think haapai was a patient. Why would her place of employment have anything to do with it? It has been said that her co-worker (so same place of employment) might be guilty of a HIPAA violation for sharing the information found about another co-worker. That can only be true if they work in healthcare. HIPAA laws protect the privacy of all patients, but they protect them from healthcare workers. The nurse who was involved in looking at the records, with no professional reason to do so, is definitely in violation of HIPAA. However, unless haapai also works in healthcare, then her co-worker (the alleged snoop) can not have violated HIPAA because HIPAA doesn't safe guard against joe schmoe telling people about your medical history, only against healthcare workers.
Maybe an example is a better way of explaining. I worked in healthcare for 10+ years. If, during that time, I had come home and told C protected health information about a patient, I would have been violating HIPAA regulations. If C had then shared that information with someone else, he would NOT have been guilty of a HIPAA violation because he did not work in healthcare. On the other hand, if I had shared that same information with a friend who worked in another medical office and they then shared with others, that friend would be guilty of a HIPAA violation because they did work in healthcare. (And they should have reported me for sharing that information to begin with.)
The victim might have recourse in filing slander or defamation claims against the snoop (if the alleged snoop is even proven to have been involved - since she was cleared to come back to work after an internal investigation, it's very possible there's no evidence or that she is innocent of the charges made against her), but those are a bit harder to prove when the gossip being spread is true.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 4, 2013 1:11:38 GMT -5
Our hospital was pretty tight with patients' medical records. A nurse could access the records of the patients assigned to her, but could not access the records of patients not assigned to her. Her charge nurse could access those records if the need arose, but the charge nurse would have had to inform me, or whatever supervisor was in charge, before doing so. There was no wiggle room in the computer system for playing fast and loose with patient records.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 4, 2013 10:16:09 GMT -5
Our hospital was pretty tight with patients' medical records. A nurse could access the records of the patients assigned to her, but could not access the records of patients not assigned to her. Her charge nurse could access those records if the need arose, but the charge nurse would have had to inform me, or whatever supervisor was in charge, before doing so. There was no wiggle room in the computer system for playing fast and loose with patient records. It's a lot easier since most (if not all) records are part of the electronic medical record (EMR). I could log in remotely from home on my couch to my work computer and access the hospital EMR and see anything I wanted about anybody. Of course, it's password protected and logged so that all my actions are traceable were I to do anything unsavory.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 4, 2013 10:26:16 GMT -5
Our hospital was pretty tight with patients' medical records. A nurse could access the records of the patients assigned to her, but could not access the records of patients not assigned to her. Her charge nurse could access those records if the need arose, but the charge nurse would have had to inform me, or whatever supervisor was in charge, before doing so. There was no wiggle room in the computer system for playing fast and loose with patient records. It's a lot easier since most (if not all) records are part of the electronic medical record (EMR). I could log in remotely from home on my couch to my work computer and access the hospital EMR and see anything I wanted about anybody. Of course, it's password protected and logged so that all my actions are traceable were I to do anything unsavory. Our system was a little more selective. A staff RN couldn't log in to see patient charts from home. The RN could only see the charts of patients assigned to her. To see the charts of patients from a remote location required special permissions and entry through the doctor's system. The two systems interacted but were accessed differently, and only certain people with a proven need to know could access patient charts.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,711
|
Post by CCL on Sept 4, 2013 10:52:36 GMT -5
It's a lot easier since most (if not all) records are part of the electronic medical record (EMR). I could log in remotely from home on my couch to my work computer and access the hospital EMR and see anything I wanted about anybody. Of course, it's password protected and logged so that all my actions are traceable were I to do anything unsavory. Our system was a little more selective. A staff RN couldn't log in to see patient charts from home. The RN could only see the charts of patients assigned to her. To see the charts of patients from a remote location required special permissions and entry through the doctor's system. The two systems interacted but were accessed differently, and only certain people with a proven need to know could access patient charts. As both examples illustrate, it depends on the system setup and also the level of access granted to any particular individual.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 4, 2013 11:00:37 GMT -5
Our system was a little more selective. A staff RN couldn't log in to see patient charts from home. The RN could only see the charts of patients assigned to her. To see the charts of patients from a remote location required special permissions and entry through the doctor's system. The two systems interacted but were accessed differently, and only certain people with a proven need to know could access patient charts. As both examples illustrate, it depends on the system setup and also the level of access granted to any particular individual. Precisely, cheesecakelady. Some systems are more restrictive than others. In the case of our hospital, I found that to be a good thing, if a bit cumbersome at times. It served well to protect patients' privacy. Even with the protections in place, everyone had a login code that was changed fairly often, so anything done could be traced back if the need arose. My login code for the records the nurses could access was different than the code I used to access the system the doctors used.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 4, 2013 11:14:43 GMT -5
The top two inches of every intake form that I have filled out for every medical care provider contains my name, current address, date of birth, social security number, and telephone number. It's crack for an identity thief.
I am somewhat surprised that they are still using SS#. I was under the impression that healthcare providers could no longer link your SS# to your health data.
About 10 years ago, I was walking through the medical school and found a sheaf of papers on the floor. It turned out to be that day's surgical schedule, and the patient's name, surgeon, SS#, surgical procedure, anesthesiologist and operating room were listed. I had a hell of a time trying to find out where to return it and didn't have the time to spend all day on the phone, so ran the papers through the shredder in the lab.
However, when I got copies of my records to move my treatment out to WA in 2011, there wasn't a sign of my SS# in my records.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Sept 4, 2013 11:16:51 GMT -5
It has been said that her co-worker (so same place of employment) might be guilty of a HIPAA violation for sharing the information found about another co-worker. That can only be true if they work in healthcare. HIPAA laws protect the privacy of all patients, but they protect them from healthcare workers. The nurse who was involved in looking at the records, with no professional reason to do so, is definitely in violation of HIPAA. However, unless haapai also works in healthcare, then her co-worker (the alleged snoop) can not have violated HIPAA because HIPAA doesn't safe guard against joe schmoe telling people about your medical history, only against healthcare workers.
Maybe an example is a better way of explaining. I worked in healthcare for 10+ years. If, during that time, I had come home and told C protected health information about a patient, I would have been violating HIPAA regulations. If C had then shared that information with someone else, he would NOT have been guilty of a HIPAA violation because he did not work in healthcare. On the other hand, if I had shared that same information with a friend who worked in another medical office and they then shared with others, that friend would be guilty of a HIPAA violation because they did work in healthcare. (And they should have reported me for sharing that information to begin with.)
The victim might have recourse in filing slander or defamation claims against the snoop (if the alleged snoop is even proven to have been involved - since she was cleared to come back to work after an internal investigation, it's very possible there's no evidence or that she is innocent of the charges made against her), but those are a bit harder to prove when the gossip being spread is true.
I'm not really clear on who was looking at who's records. My understanding is that haapai was a patient herself since she mentioned her personal information, so the nurse who originally accessed or gave access to haapai or any other patient's record without a "need to know," would be in violation. Yes, as I have said many time, the NURSE was in violation. It is haapai's co-worker (the snoop, not the victim) who is not guilty of a HIPAA violation, unless they work in the medical field.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 4, 2013 11:33:26 GMT -5
Maybe an example is a better way of explaining. I worked in healthcare for 10+ years. If, during that time, I had come home and told C protected health information about a patient, I would have been violating HIPAA regulations. If C had then shared that information with someone else, he would NOT have been guilty of a HIPAA violation because he did not work in healthcare. On the other hand, if I had shared that same information with a friend who worked in another medical office and they then shared with others, that friend would be guilty of a HIPAA violation because they did work in healthcare. (And they should have reported me for sharing that information to begin with.)
This is why when YOU report your Personal health information to a third party who is not HIPAA compliant (like those services offered by employers for health checks where you have an incentive to give out the info) that company is not breaking any rules by providing that information back to your employer.
We were doing a research study, where I was working with the blood and saliva with research subjects. One of our exclusion criteria for the study was AIDs, or any HIV disease as we were looking at immune responses. The subject lied on his questionnaire and was admitted into the study. We did not find out until the hygienist who was in the clinical research division (our department) was shifted over to dental hygiene to help out during someone's maternity leave. She accessed the records of one of her patients, who happened to be in our study and discovered that he was HIV positive.
She told the lab staff, to give us the head's up about working with these samples. She was not supposed to inform us (even though the lab is HIPAA compliant and we had no idea who this person was anyway), but his samples were pulled from the study, even though he continued to be enrolled. All of us wound up getting 'reeducated'.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Sept 4, 2013 11:50:43 GMT -5
It is also why you need to read any forms from other insurance companies carefully. One of the insurance companies we were dealing with for our last car accident was asking for access to any and all of our medical records- physical and mental health - whether they were related to the accident or not. In addition, their paperwork called out that they were not covered under HIPAA (because they are auto insurance, not health), so they had a right to sell that information to whoever they wanted and that they could use that information themselves in any future case, including determining our eligibility/costs for any future insurance underwritten by them. Oh, and if we did not sign the authorization, then we were SOL and they would not pay for our medical coverage from the accident.
Because C and I know what they can legally ask for (and because we had the forms from our insurance company, which were much less invasive), we crossed out sections of the contract they sent us and made modifications. We did not sign in the standard spot, but instead signed under a statement saying that the authorization was only valid with the modifications made, and that they did not have permission to access information not related to the accident, sell our information, or even keep our information past the time needed for payment of our claim.
This was a major, well known and well respected insurance company, one I had seriously considered doing business with. After seeing their "standard" release form as compared to our company's standard release form, I now know I never will.
But the point is, we like to call HIPAA violation on a lot of things that aren't actually HIPAA violations. In this case, the nurse was in violation, but no one else was.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 4, 2013 12:13:16 GMT -5
That jives with what I've been told by the privacy geek. She offered to run an audit "before the holiday" and convey a negative result to me. I was kinda surprised that she could do this much without me confirming my identity and signing lots of forms. I don't know if her delay in getting back to me is due to her inability to run the audit, innocuous results, anomalous results, or cold feet regarding the strange way that I asked her to convey the results. My phone had no coverage that day, so I asked her to call back at a different number or convey the results by email. I'll have to get in touch with her tomorrow and figure out the next step. The odds that I was snooped on are kinda low. I'm insanely healthy. I under-consume medical care. I don't work particularly closely with the skank/snoop and I'm reasonably prudent regarding my pay stubs and leaving personal mail in my car. I should not have aroused the interest of the snoop. On the other hand, about twenty years ago, long before HIPAA was enacted, I worked in a medical clinic and routinely read patient records for my own amusement.
So I have a sense of how addictive patient records can be for the virginal young folks.
When I worked for a health insurance company I had days I almost needed a change of pants the claims were so funny! Some of the explanations alone were enough to send the whole area into laughter. Then we had the doozies.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 5, 2013 15:59:01 GMT -5
I got an answer from the privacy dept. I wasn't snooped on.
It's a bit of a letdown. I would have gladly traded my privacy for a chance to revenge my deeply hurt coworker.
The only good news that I got was that a handful of my other coworkers have made similar requests. Maybe one of them was interesting enough to be snooped on. At the very least, my snooped-upon coworker will appreciate the trouble taken.
It appears that I'll have to get used to the idea of working with the coworker who did this. My employer seems to be taking the tactic that this was completely extra-curricular bad behavior and even if it did happen, was not a firing offense. That's going to be a hard thing to reconcile myself to, particularly since I don't trust them to conduct a thorough investigation. My employer probably failed to tie down a few loose ends that might have uncovered a terminable offense due to the fear that any misstep would blow up in their faces.
|
|