Search

Importance: Hospital websites frequently use tracking technologies that transfer user information to third parties. It is not known whether hospital websites include privacy policies that disclose relevant details regarding tracking., Objective: To determine whether hospital websites have accessible privacy policies and whether those policies contain key information related to third-party tracking., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional content analysis of website privacy policies of a nationally representative sample of nonfederal acute care hospitals, hospital websites were first measured to determine whether they included tracking technologies that transferred user information to third parties. Hospital website privacy policies were then identified using standardized searches. Policies were assessed for length and readability. Policy content was analyzed using a data abstraction form. Tracking measurement and privacy policy retrieval and analysis took place from November 2023 to January 2024. The prevalence of privacy policy characteristics was analyzed using standard descriptive statistics., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was the availability of a website privacy policy. Secondary outcomes were the length and readability of privacy policies and the inclusion of privacy policy content addressing user information collected by the website, potential uses of user information, third-party recipients of user information, and user rights regarding tracking and information collection., Results: Of 100 hospital websites, 96 (96.0%; 95% CI, 90.1%-98.9%) transferred user information to third parties. Privacy policies were found on 71 websites (71.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-79.4%). Policies were a mean length of 2527 words (95% CI, 2058-2997 words) and were written at a mean grade level of 13.7 (95% CI, 13.4-14.1). Among 71 privacy policies, 69 (97.2%; 95% CI, 91.4%-99.5%) addressed types of user information automatically collected by the website, 70 (98.6%; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.9%) addressed how collected information would be used, 66 (93.0%; 95% CI, 85.3%-97.5%) addressed categories of third-party recipients of user information, and 40 (56.3%; 95% CI, 44.5%-67.7%) named specific third-party companies or services receiving user information., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of hospital website privacy policies, a substantial number of hospital websites did not present users with adequate information about the privacy implications of website use, either because they lacked a privacy policy or had a privacy policy that contained limited content about third-party recipients of user information.

Importance: Emergency nurses experience high levels of workplace violence during patient interactions. Little is known about the efficacy of behavioral flags, which are notifications embedded within electronic health records (EHRs) as a tool to promote clinician safety., Objective: To explore the perspectives of emergency nurses on EHR behavioral flags, workplace safety, and patient care., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative study, semistructured interviews were conducted with emergency nurses at an academic, urban emergency department (ED) between February 8 and March 25, 2022. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Data analysis was performed from April 2 to 13, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes and subthemes of nursing perspectives on EHR behavioral flags were identified., Results: This study included 25 registered emergency nurses at a large academic health system, with a mean (SD) tenure of 5 (6) years in the ED. Their mean (SD) age was 33 (7) years; 19 were women (76%) and 6 were men (24%). Participants self-reported their race as Asian (3 [12%]), Black (3 [12%]), White (15 [60%]), or multiple races (2 [8%]); 3 participants (12%) self-reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latinx. Five themes (with subthemes) were identified: (1) benefits of flags (useful advisory; prevents violence; engenders compassion), (2) issues with flags (administrative and process issues; unhelpful; unenforceable; bias; outdated), (3) patient transparency (patient accountability; damages patient-clinician relationship), (4) system improvements (process; built environment; human resources; zero-tolerance policies), and (5) difficulties of working in the ED (harassment and abuse; unmet mental health needs of patients; COVID-19-related strain and burnout)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, nursing perspectives on the utility and importance of EHR behavioral flags varied. For many, flags served as an important forewarning to approach patient interactions with more caution or use safety skills. However, nurses were skeptical of the ability of flags to prevent violence from occurring and noted concern for the unintended consequences of introducing bias into patient care. These findings suggest that changes to the deployment and utilization of flags, in concert with other safety interventions, are needed to create a safer work environment and mitigate bias.

Importance: Behavioral flags in the electronic health record (EHR) are designed to alert clinicians of potentially unsafe or aggressive patients. These flags may introduce bias, and understanding how they are used is important to ensure equitable care., Objective: To investigate the incidence of behavioral flags and assess whether there were differences between Black and White patients and whether the flags were associated with differences in emergency department (ED) clinical care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of EHR data of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, EDs within a single health system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Secondary analyses excluded patients with sickle cell disease and high ED care utilization. Data were analyzed from February 1 to April 4, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was the presence of an EHR behavioral flag. Secondary measures included variation of flags across sex, race, age, insurance status, triage status, ED clinical care metrics (eg, laboratory, medication, and radiology orders), ED disposition (discharge, admission, or observation), and length of key intervals during ED care., Results: Participating EDs had 195 601 eligible patients (110 890 [56.7%] female patients; 113 638 Black patients [58.1%]; 81 963 White patients [41.9%]; median [IQR] age, 42 [28-60] years), with 426 858 ED visits. Among these, 683 patients (0.3%) had a behavioral flag notification in the EHR (3.5 flags per 1000 patients), and it was present for 6851 ED visits (16 flagged visits per 1000 visits). Patient differences between those with a flag and those without included male sex (56.1% vs 43.3%), Black race (71.2% vs 56.7%), and insurance status, particularly Medicaid insurance (74.5% vs 36.3%). Flag use varied across sites. Black patients received flags at a rate of 4.0 per 1000 patients, and White patients received flags at a rate of 2.4 per 1000 patients (P < .001). Among patients with a flag, Black patients, compared with White patients, had longer waiting times to be placed in a room (median [IQR] time, 28.0 [10.5-89.4] minutes vs 18.2 [7.2-75.1] minutes; P < .001), longer waiting times to see a clinician (median [IQR] time, 42.1 [18.8-105.5] minutes vs 33.3 [15.3-84.5] minutes; P < .001), and shorter lengths of stay (median [IQR] time, 274 [135-471] minutes vs 305 [154-491] minutes; P = .01). Black patients with a flag underwent fewer laboratory (eg, 2449 Black patients with 0 orders [43.4%] vs 441 White patients with 0 orders [36.7%]; P < .001) and imaging (eg, 3541 Black patients with no imaging [62.7%] vs 675 White patients with no imaging [56.2%]; P < .001) tests compared with White patients with a flag., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found significant differences in ED clinical care metrics, including that flagged patients had longer wait times and were less likely to undergo laboratory testing and imaging, which was amplified in Black patients.