Printer Friendly Page
VA'S HEALTH RECORDS SOFTWARE ALLOWS
BLACKLISTING
OF VETERANS -- The Patient Record Flag has
enormous
potential for abuse and can be used by a doctor
to demonize or libel a patient.

I normally don't publish blog posts. But,
this is incredibly accurate and is something that every veteran should
know.
For a complete look at the VA's guidelines and
regulations for Patient Record Flags, click here...
http://www.va.gov/vdl/app
lication.asp?appid=156
For more about VistA software, use the VA Watchdog search
engine...click here...
http://www.yourvabenefits.org/ses
search.php?q=vista&op=and
Story here...
http://paynehertz.
blogspot.com/2007/09/vas-hea
lth-records-software-allows.html
Story below:
-------------------------
VA's Health Records Software Allows
Blacklisting of Veterans
The Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
(VistA) is a system-wide electronic health records program employed by
the United States Veterans Health Administration to enable doctors in
any VA hospital or outpatient clinic to quickly create and review
patient records as well as order medications and tests. Computerized
medical records improve efficiency, reduce the need for repeated tests,
and reduce the potential for medical errors. Used properly, they are a
powerful tool for improving the quality and efficiency of patient care.
But they have a dark side, as well. The same technology that enables a
VA doctor in San Diego to review an MRI within minutes of its being
performed in New York allows any doctor within the system to view any
negative, inflammatory or libelous statements that may be included in
the patient’s record, possibly prejudicing the doctor against a
particular veteran, and compromising if not sabotaging that veteran’s
medical care.
The VistA electronic medical records software contains a feature called
a “Patient Record Flag” (PRF) that gives doctors in the VA system the
ability to blacklist patients who in their opinion are disruptive or
pose a potential risk to the health and safety of patients and staff, or
who have exhibited drug-seeking behavior. When a doctor in the VA system
accesses a patient's electronic record, there is a small button labeled
"Flag" in the upper right-hand corner of the menu that appears with the
patient's record, and doctors can easily read or enter remarks about
"problem patients" by clicking on that button, which will be highlighted
in bold red letters if there are any entries, but is otherwise greyed-out.
(see image above)
The PRF is by design readily accessible to anyone within the system with
access to a computer terminal, including receptionists and
administrative clerks, and thus compromises patient confidentiality.
While ostensibly designed to protect the safety and wellbeing of
patients and staff from patients with a documented history of threats or
acts of violence, the Patient Record Flag has enormous potential for
abuse, and can be used by a doctor to demonize or libel a patient who
has filed a complaint against the doctor, or who has simply engaged in
behavior the doctor personally finds suspect or annoying. Patient
blacklisting is a particularly insidious form of libel, as it can and
often does result in denial of medical care and puts the patient's life,
health and privacy at risk.
Patient blacklisting is a fairly common but rarely discussed problem
throughout the US medical system even though it is widely considered to
be unethical and is often illegal as well. Doctors use these blacklists
as a means of alerting other doctors to patients they feel may pose a
problem, but they are also used to punish patients for no other reason
than the patients in question annoyed the doctor or filed complaints
against him, and are often a willful attempt at medical sabotage.
Sometimes doctors will specifically request that a particular patient be
denied medical care. Other times, doctors will voluntarily refrain from
providing care due to the fear a particular patient might file a lawsuit
against him or might be a drug seeker. Since denial of proper treatment
can lead to the injury or death of a patient, blacklisting is in reality
a form of medical assault and malicious libel.
But despite their widespread use, medical blacklists tend to be fairly
local in scope, often existing exclusively within a particular hospital
or shared across a few local hospitals, doctors and pharmacies. These
blacklists are usually informal, often just a notebook maintained in the
ER of "problem patients," such as "drug seekers" or "frequent flyers"
(patients who come to the ER looking for drugs to treat their pain or to
get high, or with a perceived excessive number of visits). It is
remarkably easy to get added to a blacklist, particularly for chronic
pain patients who are routinely stigmatized as "addicts" by uninformed
or unethical physicians who frequently confuse legitimate requests for
pain treatment with the behavior of drug addicts looking to get high.
Some private pharmacy chains also maintain records of any "drug-seeking"
behavior they perceive to have encountered and share this info
throughout their own computer networks, as well as with doctors upon
request.
But the VA has unfortunately moved this primitive practice into the 21st
Century by incorporating the ability to blacklist patients right into
its software, which means that any patient who is so branded is going to
have a problem not just in his local VA hospital or outpatient clinic,
but throughout the entire VA system. Although the VA publishes a
guideline for the use of the PRF (Patient Record Flags Phase III User
Guide, available here...
http://www.va
.gov/vdl/application.asp?appid=156
) it is possible for a doctor to write anything he wants in the PRF, and
unless the patient finds out about it, which is unlikely, he will not be
able to challenge it. This documentation describes the PRF thusly:
| Patient record flags are used to alert
VHA medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and
characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the
safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality
health care. These flag assignments are displayed during the
patient look-up process (pg 1, PRF user guide). |
Perhaps recognizing the potential for abuse of
the PRF, the VA also notes in its guideline that:
PRFs should never be used to punish or
to discriminate against patients; nor should they be constructed
merely for staff convenience. The effectiveness of PRFs depends
upon limiting their use to those unusual risks that threaten the
safe delivery of health care. Threats to the effective use of PRFs
are their misuse and their overuse." (p 27, PRF user guide)
PRFs need to be free of redundant language, slanderous or
inflammatory labels, and language that provides insufficient
information or guidance for action.
(p 29, PRF user guide) |
But it is difficult to see how adopting a
guideline that many doctors in the system have probably never bothered
to read is going to prevent abuse of this system. Though the VA requires
that all PRFs be reviewed every 2 years or whenever a patient requests a
review, as noted below, there is no requirement for notifying a patient
that he has in fact been red-flagged and the damage is often done by the
time a patient figures out he's been blacklisted, if he ever does. Two
years is a long time to have to go without proper medical care because
some doctor at the VA didn't like your attitude, and there is no
guarantee the review process will remove frivolous or libelous PRFs.
| As part of the patient health record,
all PRF are under authority of the Chief of Staff at each facility
and must be reviewed at least every 2 years. A reminder for
upcoming review must be generated 60 days prior to the 2-year
anniversary date of the PRF. NOTE: PRFs must be accorded the same
confidentiality and security as any other part of the heath
record. (p 28, PRF user guide) |
However, it is unlikely the confidentiality of
patients is being protected when the VA authorizes nearly anybody within
the system with access to a computer terminal, including enrollment
clerks, insurance and billing staff, and travel clerks to access the PRF.
While some strategy to alert the staff in VA hospitals of patients who
have a proven history of violence may seem logical and warranted, the
mechanism they have chosen amounts to little more than a blacklist where
any doctor can voice hostile opinions about patients he doesn't like and
effectively sabotage any patient's care.
The VistA software's built-in blacklist is of particular concern to
veterans with chronic pain problems, as patients complaining of pain are
the most frequent targets of blacklists in other medical contexts and
some blacklists are maintained exclusively for "drug-seekers." VA's
guidelines specifically allow the PRF to be used to red flag patients
who exhibit "drug-seeking" behavior (pg 23) without specifically
defining exactly what that behavior is. In fact there is no consensus
definition as to what actually constitutes "drug-seeking behavior" and
the term lacks scientific precision. For the most part, drug-seeking
behavior is whatever the doctor says it is, based on nothing more than
medical folklore or his own prejudices. Chronic pain patients often find
themselves branded with the modern-day equivalent of the Scarlet Letter
(in this case, the "A" is for "addict.") for no other reason that they
exhibited behaviors that are often associated with real drug addicts, a
phenomenon known as "pseudoaddiction." Dr. Frank B. Fisher, a
Harvard-trained general practitioner and chronic pain advocate in
California, describes pseudoaddiction thusly:
| The term pseudoaddiction was coined in
1989 to describe chronic pain victims mistakenly diagnosed as
suffering from opioid addiction after they were driven, by
undertreated pain, to display certain drug-related behaviors.
Simply stated, pseudoaddiction is a misdiagnosis that results from
undertreatment of chronic pain. When this diagnosis is made, the
medical system has erred. Recognition that patients are frequently
harmed by misdiagnosis of addiction should prompt an aggressive
search for undertreatment of pain. Unfortunately, this usually
does not happen. Instead, when a patient displays certain
behaviors, he is typically threatened with termination of his
treatment, rather than questioned about its effectiveness.
|
So clearly, labeling a patient as a
"drug-seeker" is not only libelous, it is unscientific as it is
impossible to determine whether a person is an addict or not simply
through behavioral cues. Of course, doctors certainly do not need to use
the PRF feature to blacklist a patient, but can do so through more
traditional means or by simply entering libelous or inflammatory
comments in other areas of the patient's medical record. But the mere
existence of the PRF suggests to any doctor in the VA system that
blacklisting a patient is not only a permissible but a desirable thing
to do, even when that blacklisting doesn't fall within the parameters of
the stated guidelines, which are problematic in themselves. Thanks to
the VA's creation of an officially-sanctioned, computerized blacklist,
many veterans may find themselves unfairly branded for the "crime" of
being wounded during their service and demanding treatment for their
pain.
(The VistA software was developed at taxpayer's expense and is public
domain and can be downloaded with a Freedom of Information request, but
the website also has a downloadable demo available here...
http://www1.va.gov/CPRSdemo/
)
-------------------------
Larry Scott --