WhatsApp-propriate? A retrospective content analysis of WhatsApp use and potential breaches in confidentiality among a team of doctors at a district hospital, South Africa

Background. There has been a steady increase in the use of electronic media and instant messaging among healthcare professionals, where it has been almost universally adopted in the workplace. The use of WhatsApp and its perceived benefits in healthcare have been extensively studied; however, there...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:South African medical journal 2021-02, Vol.111 (2), p.171
Main Authors: Meyer, G.D, Meyer, N, du Toit, J.D, Mans, P.A, Moffett, B.D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Confidential communications
Ethical aspects
Instant messaging software
Laws, regulations and rules
Physician and patient
Physicians
Technology application
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background. There has been a steady increase in the use of electronic media and instant messaging among healthcare professionals, where it has been almost universally adopted in the workplace. The use of WhatsApp and its perceived benefits in healthcare have been extensively studied; however, there are concerns regarding the potential for ethical breaches in confidentiality through shared electronic patient information. Objectives. To identify the usage characteristics and incidence of shared patient information with WhatsApp use in a team of medical doctors in an unobserved and unregulated setting. Methods. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional content analysis of WhatsApp messages (n=3 340) among a team of 20 doctors in a South African district hospital over 6 months. All messages found within this time period were allocated unique identifiers. The text and image messages were thematically grouped into four categories, i.e. clinical care, resource allocation, social and administrative. Messages that contained patient-identifying information were included in the analysis. Results. Of a total of 3 340 messages sent, 220 (6.6%) contained patient-identifying information. Of these, 109 (3.3%) contained nonanonymised patient information, while in 111 (3.3%) messages, the information was anonymised. The likelihood of sharing patient identifiers was proportionally much higher in shared images (odds ratio (OR) 5.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2-8.2; p
ISSN:0256-9574
2078-5135
DOI:10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14453