Search Privacy Violations, Breaches and Complaints
This database was last updated in December 2015 ago and should only be used as a historical snapshot. More recent data on breaches affecting 500 or more people is available at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Breach Portal.
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
Cited by the California Department of Public Health for a violation of California’s Health and Safety Code relating to medical privacy during an inspection that began on September 10, 2012. Also cited in 279 other reports.
Report ID: M5TE11.01, California Department of Public Health
Reported Entity: EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
Issue:
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed for one patient (Patient A), to ensure that (PHI) Protected Health Information was not disclosed to any entity not authorized to receive the information. The facility failed to ensure they had procedures/guidelines in place to ensure the correct patient was identified to prevent sending incorrect patient information. This failed practice resulted in unauthorized access to Patient A's demographic information and medical records.Findings:On September 10, 2012, a visit was made to the facility to investigate a breach of PHI.On June 22, 2012, EMC staff discovered that Protected Health Information was sent to entity not authorized to receive the information. Patient B ' s medical records were requested by a physician's office. The EMC employee sent Patient A ' s medical records to the physician's office. The EMC employee did not verify the correct patient ' s records were obtained and faxed to the physician ' s office as requested. An interview was conducted with the Compliance Officer on September 10, 2012, at 12 p.m. The Compliance Officer stated the two patients involved had the same name. The Compliance Officer further stated that the EMC employee should have checked the patient's date of birth to confirm she had the correct patient, prior to sending the medical records to the physician's office. The EMC employee did not use a second verifier. As a result, the wrong medical records were faxed and Patient A's Protected Health Information was breached.The facility's Guidelines For Release of Information (document had no date) was reviewed. The procedure indicated, "The following guidelines must be followed in order to maintain accuracy and meet HIPPA guidelines for the release of protected health information...All pages must be checked/verified to ensure the patient name (last name, first name)."
Outcome:
Deficiency cited by the California Department of Public Health: Health & Safety Code 1280