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.
Northwest Network (VISN 20)
Mentioned in a privacy incident report created by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on June 29, 2012. Also cited in 208 other reports.
Report ID: SPE000000077395, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Reported Entity: VISN 20 Seattle, WA
Issue:
Veteran A received a copy of his Progress Notes one week after his last VA appointment. The Progress Notes were ten (10) pages in length; however, pages 7-11 are pertaining to Veteran B. Veteran A brought the Progress Notes back to the VA ROI Office and requested that his records be "amended" as the notes were incorrect and made reference to someone who was a different chronological age and had a different medical history. The Privacy Office received the Amendment Request three days after Veteran A returned the document to the ROI Office, and discovered this to be a Privacy Incident that required notification and an amendment to Veteran A's medical record. The Privacy office is working with the Chief of HIMS and Service Line Leader for mental health to determine as to whether this is an ROI error or an error created by a clinician entering notes into CPRS on the wrong patient. Both of the Veterans that are affected by this incident were seen by the same clinician, per the CPRS notes. Investigation is ongoing pending clarification and determination of the root cause of the incident by the PO, Chief of HIMS and SLL. Update: 07/02/12:Veteran B will be sent a notification letter due to PHI being exposed.
Outcome:
Chief of HIMS and medical records staff are auditing both of the affected Veteran's records to ensure that there isn't any further "co-mingling" of patient progress notes from their PCP. The PCP may have mistakenly added the notes of Patient A to Patient B's chart due to patient A's chart not being closed prior to transcribing Patient B's notes. This is still under investigation, but this is the most likely scenario. The affected Veteran has been sent a General Notification Letter, and the providers are being reminded to close one record before entering progress notes in another record, as errors are likely to occur more frequently if this safeguard isn't practiced on a regular and sustained basis.