Hipaa Acknowledgement And Consent: Fill & Download for Free

I always wondered about this.To avert a possibility of questioned informed consent, I printed out a specific consent form for each patient with check boxes next to each point.I would sit next to the patient and review each point with him, checking each box when the patient acknowledged understanding and then had the patient sign the bottom of the form in my presence at the same time as I signed the form.Next to my signature was a specific statement:I have discussed the nature and purpose of the proposed surgical procedure along with the common risks, potential complications and alternative methods of treatment. The patient understands all of these and consents to the surgery as described.Handing a form to a patient and asking them to sign it when they have obviously not read it is the stupidest/ unjustifiable thing done commonly in US medical practice.I would also like to see all patients consistently refuse to sign HIPAA “disclosures”.

Interesting question I would like to know a little bit more but I will tell you what I know based off what information you have given. First, assuming that your place of employment has an employee handbook, there should be an acknowledgement or consent form employees sign granting permission for workplace surveillance aside from designated locations (restroom, employee lounge, or anyplace you would expect privacy such as “Private Office”). This basically means any employee (boss or otherwise) consents to being recorded in a working area. So if you're recording them outside one of those locations, they probably already gave consent.*Side-note Supreme Court cases arise about these rights all the time and in most cases; If the recorded party is even partially visible in a public area (even if said front door was partially open and visible from a public street) there should already be no expectation of privacy.Second, in our nation's capital; D.C is a “One-Party Consent” zone which means (slightly self-explanatory) as long as one party knows of the recording and consents , the other party doesn't have to give consent; AS LONG AS the consenting party is involved in and continuing the conversation (you are recording, you consent to being recorded, and you are involved in the conversation). If this doesn't “help” seek legal counsel.Referenced:D.C’s “Wire-tapping Law” Code § 23-542.Prior class on Cyber-security and Ethics (recent class that focused on Privacy Act of 1974 and HIPAA).

There are already some excellent answers here.There are several conflicting court decisions and laws that confuse the issue.Most states, presumably including Utah, have an “implied consent law.” When you get your drivers license, one of the documents you sign is a consent to provide a breath or blood sample for testing on demand of a peace officer. If you refuse, the state will revoke your license. In some states there is a criminal penalty for refusing. The officer was, in part, replying on the implied consent law to obtain a blood specimen without explicit permission from the unconscious person.A 1966 SCOTUS decision, Schmerber v. California, designated blood alcohol to be “dissipating evidence,” and acknowledged that there is often not sufficient time to obtain a search warrant or other court order for a blood specimen, as the blood alcohol level dissipates over time. It permitted police officers to obtain specimens by force, if necessary, without a search warrant, so long as the methods use did not “shock the conscience of the court.” Slicing open a vein to gain access to blood would probably be one of those shocks to the conscience. Using a syringe to obtain blood in a conventional manner would not, even if the person from whom the sample was taken did not consent.A more recent (2016) SCOTUS decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, required law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant to get a blood specimen from a suspected drunk driver if the driver refused to provide one. This overruled laws in several states that allowed law enforcement officers to obtain blood specimens by force in cases where suspected drunk drivers refused to provide samples.In the instant case in Utah, the subject did not refuse to provide a blood specimen. He was unconscious and unable to give consent either way. If I read the report correctly, the person who was unconscious was not suspected of wrongdoing. He was driving a truck when a suspect who was being pursued by the Utah Highway Patrol struck his truck and caused a collision and fire. It is common to obtain blood specimens from all persons involved in serious accidents, to forego later claims that one person or another was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and there is no other evidence to rely on.The nurse who was arrested was, near as I can tell, trying to act in the best interests of her patient. Her hospital’s policy required consent or a search warrant to obtain blood from a patient who did not give explicit consent. The officer was trying to obtain evidence that would have been less valuable and relevant with the passage of time. A compromise would have been for the hospital to draw an extra tube of blood, and to surrender it to the police only after a search warrant had been obtained.Utah has a program that operates in several states where police officers are trained as phlebotomists (people who draw blood for medical testing), and can obtain blood specimens without having to resort to a third party to draw the blood. This makes the paperwork a bit simpler, but a blood specimen drawn by a non-police phlebotomist is no less valid. The only variation from the usual procedure is that some agent other than alcohol is used to clean the injection site prior to the blood draw.This situation reminds me of the several occasions where police officers have arrested fire service personnel at an accident scene, usually when the fire service person refuses to move a truck when the police asked them to. It’s usually a battle of wills and egos, and in the end, everyone looks bad. There will almost certainly be a lawsuit, one or more persons will lose their job or be suspended, and, as before, everyone looks bad. I wish someone with a cooler head had stepped in and defused the situation.