Pharmacist disciplined for snooping in health records
Health records of family members and ‘a deceased colleague’ were inappropriately accessed, college says
A New Brunswick pharmacist has been disciplined for snooping in private health records, including files that belonged to family members and those of "a deceased colleague."
A decision published on the New Brunswick College of Pharmacists' website says the pharmacist was sanctioned for "viewing health records when there was no patient-professional relationship present."
The pharmacist isn't identified in the decision, nor does it say where the pharmacist worked at the time of the incident.
College registrar Sam Lanctin said the pharmacist's employer has reported the incident, which happened in February, to the Office of the Integrity Commissioner.
The commissioner's office is aware of the snooping case, "and it will be brought to the commissioner's attention," Kara Patterson, senior legal counsel for the office, wrote in an emailed statement.
Lanctin said cases involving a breach of privacy are rare, but the college takes them very seriously when they happen.
"We want to make sure that we act on them because it's not acceptable in our profession or in any health profession to be breaking those boundaries of privacy," he said in an interview.
"We do have a strong code of ethics to guide that and strong regulations and we hold our pharmacists, and our pharmacy technicians as well, to account when these things are uncovered."
The college's complaints committee found the pharmacist violated the profession's code of ethics and standards of practice, as well as the Personal Health Information Privacy and Access Act and the New Brunswick Pharmacy Act.
Identity of pharmacist to remain secret
"By accessing the records of a deceased colleague and family members, the pharmacist failed to recognize the inability to act justly due to existing personal relationships and the pharmacist used privileged access to information to gain knowledge of individuals," the decision says.
In accessing the records, "the pharmacist is seen to be satisfying a personal need for knowledge rather than collecting data for the benefit of a patient."
When asked why the decision doesn't include the pharmacist's name or where he or she worked when the snooping happened, Lanctin said there isn't any value in revealing that information because the decisions aren't meant to be "punitive."
"First and foremost, the intent of these processes are to make sure there are no further risks to the patients," he said.
Suspended by employer
The pharmacist was suspended by his or her employer and mandatory education was imposed, the decision says.
Lanctin didn't know the length of the suspension or whether the pharmacist has returned to work.
In addition to the employer's suspension, the college imposed several sanctions, including a reprimand that "will remain in the pharmacist's file for two years and will be referenced in any letter of standing."
The pharmacist will also have to "provide written documentation to the administrator of complaints" detailing how he or she shared lessons from the incident with colleagues and must also pay $2,500 to the college to cover "costs associated with the investigation of this complaint."
The unnamed pharmacist won't be allowed to be a pharmacy manager or "serve as a preceptor of students/learners" for 12 months.
'An abuse of privileged access'
The decision says the pharmacist doesn't appear to have shared the information in the health records with anyone else and "may have been motivated by strong emotions of caring and suffering."
It says the pharmacist showed responsibility for their actions as well as "insight into the seriousness of the complaint."
"There was no indication of harm, from our perspective," Lanctin said.
In a message to pharmacists at the end of the decision, the college says access to private health records can only be justified when it's "to provide patient care or improve quality of care," and clear justification must be documented when accessing records that belong to a pharmacist's family, friends or colleagues.
"Accessing health records for personal reasons is an abuse of privileged access," it says.
Paul Blanchard, executive director of the New Brunswick Pharmacists' Association, wasn't aware of the disciplinary case when contacted by CBC News on Wednesday.
But he said pharmacists in the province "deal with over 13 million prescriptions annually" and have to input that data into an electronic record.
"That's a lot of transactions," he said.
"I think the public should have confidence in the fact that pharmacists are managing that information professionally."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
