I’m Kate Dewhirst.

I’m a lawyer who writes about legal issues affecting healthcare in Canada

Kate Dewhirst Health Law - bringing the law to life. Meet Kate (in 13 seconds)

Health Privacy Update – November 2017 – 4 new decisions of the IPC

Posted by

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario released four new PHIPA decisions today. These are relevant to any health care organization in Ontario.

Read the summaries of all 60 IPC PHIPA Decisions here.

Decision 57: A patient made an access request at a hospital. The patient wanted to know why he was being told by physicians at the hospital to seek care somewhere else and why the chiropodist refused to see him.  In particular, he wondered “what’s on my medical record that is the basis for telling me to go back to the other hospital”. The hospital gave the patient access to his emergency records and other visits.  He believed there should be additional records. After the IPC became involved, the hospital agreed to do a further search and found there were no records of one episode and produced a copy of previously released notes. He wanted any notes, emails or letters generated during a particular time period in the Out Patient Clinic.  The hospital did a further search and notified the patient that they were withholding certain records because they were not dedicated primarily to the PHI of the complainant and included PHI about others.

The IPC supported the decision of the hospital. The records related to emails between hospital staff and contained health information about the complainant. The IPC considered the test for whether a record is “dedicated primarily to the PHI of the complainant”. The records were not dedicated primarily to the PHI of the patient. And there was PHI of other individuals. The hospital was right to withhold those records. The IPC considered whether the hospital completed a “reasonable search” and concluded it had.

Bottom Line:  This decision is consistent with previous IPC decisions. No changes needed to your practices. 

Decision 58: On behalf of herself and other siblings, a sister asked a hospital for a copy of her deceased brother’s health records. The brother’s death was “unexpected”. The hospital declined because they were not authorized to release.  After the IPC got involved, the hospital reconsidered its discretion under s. 38(4)(b) and (c) and released some records about the circumstances of death and to assist them to make decisions about their own care.  The sister wanted more detailed information.

The IPC upheld the decision of the hospital. The disclosure of a deceased person’s records under s. 38(4)(b) and (c) is discretionary and not mandatory. The IPC considered the meaning of “circumstances of death” and concluded that the hospital fulfilled its statutory requirements under s. 38(4)(b) and did not have to release additional information to the sister that went beyond information relating to the circumstances of death. The IPC also concluded that the hospital had fulfilled its obligations to consider its discretion under s. 38(4)(c). The sister was unable to establish that she and her siblings reasonably required the additional information to make decisions about their own care.

Bottom Line:  This decision is consistent with previous IPC decisions. No changes needed to your practices. 

Decision 59: A hospital received a correction request to make 5 changes to 3 Progress notes written by different clinicians. The hospital denied the correction requests stating that the entries reflected the professional opinions of its clinicians, made in good faith. The patient said the entries are a “fraud against his good character”.

The IPC upheld the hospital’s decision. The IPC concluded that the patient’s requests reflected his desire to have the notes better explain what he was intending to communicate to the clinicians who authored the notes. But, the complainant did not establish that the records were inaccurate or incomplete for the purposes for which the hospital uses the information.

Bottom Line:  This decision is consistent with previous IPC decisions. No changes needed to your practices. 

Decision 60: A physician received a correction request to change two records: a 15-page patient/profile report and a 5-page subjective objective assessment plan (SOAP). The physician agreed to make 5 changes to the SOAP report reflecting typographical errors and incomplete sentences but refused to make the other changes.

The IPC upheld the physician’s decision. The complainant did not establish that the records were inaccurate or incomplete for the purposes for which the physician uses the information.

Bottom Line:  This decision is consistent with previous IPC decisions. No changes needed to your practices. 


If you enjoyed this article please share it:


Previous and next posts from Kate:

Some of Kate’s recent and upcoming events

Health Privacy Officer training
September 22, 2020

For Privacy Officers within healthcare organizations - now totally online.

This course focuses on how to become a more confident privacy officer and gives you the tools to document your privacy program. Full details and registration here...

Primary care webinars: Employment Law Update & Legal Issues for EDs and Board members

Part of Kate’s monthly webinar series.

Our September program is on privacy litigation and the October program will address harassment issues and scenarios.
Full details of the 2020 webinar series and registration here.

Free healthcare privacy webinar - ask me anything!
the first Wednesday of every month (Off for the Summer - next up: September 2 and October 7)

Free webinars - advance registration needed

Whether you're an experienced privacy officer or new in the field, pick Kate’s brain for free for an hour, in this live webinar. No charge, but you’ll need to register in advance.

Free Part X CYFSA privacy webinar - ask me anything!
the second Wednesday of every month (next up: July 8 and August 12)

Free webinars - advance registration needed

Whether you're an experienced privacy officer or new in the field, pick Kate’s brain for free for an hour, in this live webinar. No charge, but you’ll need to register in advance.

Team Privacy Training Events
July 8, 23, 28 August 4, October 7, 8

For Primary Care clinics, Hospitals, Community Agencies and Children’s Aid

Kate trains health professionals from many more health care organizations how being privacy-respectful can improve therapeutic relationships. More details...

Kate Dewhirst Health Law

Kate says:

My mission is bringing the law to life. I make legal theory understandable, accessible and fun! I’m available and love to work for all organizations in the healthcare sector across Ontario and beyond.

Subscribe to my mailing list and keep up to date with news:

Latest Tweets

[OCT 1] Webinar Series Case Study: Harassment investigations Register now - webinars on legal topics for EDs and ma… https://t.co/lgZdYW7mt6

about 8 hours ago

[STARTS SEPT 22, 2020] Become an even better Privacy Officer! Join my health sector online Privacy Officer training… https://t.co/EfW1pfFy4f

08:02 AM Sep 17th

[OCT 7] Register for my free upcoming Ask Me Anything About Health Privacy webinar at this link...… https://t.co/j63mcVxsHJ

08:02 AM Sep 16th

contact details

P.O. Box 97010 Roncesvalles
Toronto Ontario M6R 3B3

(416) 855 9557

.