How to set the ConfidentialityCode

I have been discussing the confidentialityCode, especially within the context of IHE-XD* (Document Sharing).  I was asked, by Keith, to give guidance on how the confidentialityCode should be set as without guidance he just tells everyone to use "N" (Normal confidentiality).

Some background articles:

• Healthcare Privacy and Security Classification System (HCS)
• Data Classification - a key vector enabling rich Security and Privacy controls
• and other articles on my topics page

Recommendation for setting confidentiatlityCode

So. I would continue to recommend that anyone or any-system publishing a CDA document should use "N", unless they have evidence to say that is the wrong value. Meaning it should be a specific effort to choose the other values:

• "R", because there is specifically sensitive content – HIV, alcohol/drug abuse, etc.
• "V", because the content should be seen only when reader is individually authorized -- psychology-notes, usually also used on all VIP patients (Not a best practice, but reality).
• "M", because the content is less sensitive than normal, but still medical. authorized for wide distribution – like an emergency-data-set, or for dietary use-cases
• "L", because the content is not medical, or has been de-identified
• "U", because the content is not specific to an individual and is public

This is right out of the definition of the vocabulary values 2.16.840.1.113883.5.25 for "_confidentiality". Available from the FHIR specification for easy reading. https://www.hl7.org/fhir/v3/Confidentiality/index.html

How to determine what the value should be?

I don't disagree that this is a hard thing to determine.

• It might be determined by workflow, psychology notes clearly are coming from a psychology workflow. 
• Clearly de-identification is a specific workflow. 
• It might be an explicit act, where the user is specifically trying to make a less-sensitive document for broad use such as a emergency-dataset, or 
• for export to the dietician. 
•  It might be a specific request, where the clinician decides that the data is very sensitive, or 
• where the patient decides that the data is very sensitive. 

This is different than a patient choice in consent regarding rules applied to these different codes, meaning where a patient chooses a restrictive consent for their data accessibility. See http://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/p/topics.html#Privacy

The VHA has shown some success in demonstration projects with passing the data through a CDS (Clinical Decision Support) to tag sensitive clinical concepts. See FHIR Demonstration of DS4P. If none are found then the data is "N", if some are found then the data is "R", if specific types are found the data is "V"… This automated method has me somewhat worried as the social norms of what is sensitive, change often. So using this automated form on publication time might produce wrong evaluation overtime. In the case of the VHA demonstration, they applied it upon 'use' of the data, so it was using the social norms rules at the time of reading. Likely better social norm rules, but not sure this is better behavior. Note that the intermediate step is tagged sensitivity category, which might be given to the access control system as information to be used in the access control decision or enforcement

Is there more?

All the other security-tags are not likely to be set upon publication. IHE has brought in the whole of  the "Healthcare Privacy/Security Classification System"

• IHE specifically recommends against using the sensitivity category, as the value itself is sensitive. They are useful for internal use, like the VHA demonstration.
• Compartment is mostly undefined, but would likely be a local value-set. Unlikely to be understood at publication time. Interesting place to play, as it might be used to define compartments like Radiology, Cardiology, Psychology, etc... but it is untested grounds.
• Integrity could be equally set by the publisher, although it is not well enough defined. But this would be a way to tag data that was generated by the patient, vs data generated by a licensed clinician.
• Handling caveats might be set on publication. The only cases I can think of are similar to the "V" cases, in that the author explicitly knows something about the data and thus needs to add a caveat.
• One specific example is 42CFR Part 2 – SAMSA covered treatment- that must be explicitly marked with a 'do not disclose without explicit authorization by the patient'. NOAUTH
• Second specific example is an obligation to delete after use, which specifically forbids persistence (including printing) DELAU

Conclusion

So, simple guidance. You need all of the _confidentiality vocabulary, and two more from the handling caveats. -- [U, L, M, N, V, R] + NOAUTH + DELAU  

Blog articles by Topic

• Patient Privacy Controls
• Access Control (including Consent Enforcement)
• Document Sharing Management (Health Information Exchange - HIE)

Bagikan Artikel