Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you're willing to take the accusation as presented at face value without any curiosity about context or details?
I guess this entire thread was lost on you.
The curiosity into the context and details are for the lawyers to find. If the firings were suspect then I am sure they will hash that out. It doesn't change the fact that HIPAA violations are serious.
She is not a Journalist, she is a Political Pundit for her Party. That’s her choice and the choice of her employer.
Few real Journalists around anymore. They all became assimilated into the Leftist Borg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
Accessing patient records when the patient isn't in your care is a HIPAA violation which doesn't have anything to do with today's climate.
Agree. That which you are replying to was a stupid post.
You don't really get it. You can't accidentally happen upon this information in a hospital. And there's no such thing as not knowing what protocol is in a hospital setting. You're dreaming if you think things are that relaxed.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised there were as many as a dozen idiots who took the risk knowing that IT logs show who looked at what and when they looked at it.
Idiots that proved they should not be employed at a hospital.
You mean the patient chart isn't dangling on a clipboard at the foot of the bed?
Nothing much to see there these days, but it's a nice flashback. Calling Dr. Welby....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
And yet you're willing to take the accusation as presented at face value without any curiosity about context or details?
I guess this entire thread was lost on you.
LOL. Don't even.
So now you've changed your argument to this might not even be factual? LMAO!! I love posters who change the debate simply because they cannot defend what their original argument was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones
Idiots that proved they should not be employed at a hospital.
So now you've changed your argument to this might not even be factual? LMAO!! I love posters who change the debate simply because they cannot defend what their original argument was. .
I haven't changed anything. My point all along as that we DON'T KNOW the facts and circumstances of these firings, and the fact that DOZENS of them were fired should trigger our skepticism detectors, and maybe we should wait for more information before labeling them as "dumb" and "idiots that proved they should not be employed at a hospital."
For some of you, it's like this whole conversation we've had over the last 5 weeks never even happened.
I haven't changed anything. My point all along as that we DON'T KNOW the facts and circumstances of these firings, and the fact that DOZENS of them were fired should trigger our skepticism detectors, and maybe we should wait for more information before labeling them as "dumb" and "idiots that proved they should not be employed at a hospital."
For some of you, it's like this whole conversation we've had over the last 5 weeks never even happened.
I haven't changed anything. My point all along as that we DON'T KNOW the facts and circumstances of these firings, and the fact that DOZENS of them were fired should trigger our skepticism detectors, and maybe we should wait for more information before labeling them as "dumb" and "idiots that proved they should not be employed at a hospital."
For some of you, it's like this whole conversation we've had over the last 5 weeks never even happened.
So you're comparing what twelve people are saying happened as reported in the news - with the reason for termination sounding legitimate.......with a piece of trash actor who reported nothing at all credible.
And because that makes sense to you, you think it should make sense to everyone.
But that's not what you've been saying anyway. You've been saying brilliant things like, 'it was selective - if they fired everyone who did this kind of thing they would have to close.'
Just stop already, you're making yourself look worse with every post.
By the way, for those not in the area - NBC News in Chicago last night did an interview with a woman who was fired who said she did a search for his name in the database but didn't access his record. The reporter asked, 'But you knew that was wrong? Just doing a search?' She said, 'Absolutely. That was wrong.'
I've worked in various highly secured environments for two decades. Sometimes you come across information you shouldn't have, whether it was careless or inadvertent or the parties involved didn't realize it was a violation at the time. It's not really a problem unless that information leaves the office. Otherwise, if everyone in my office got fired for inadvertently laying eyes on protected information or allowing information they're supposed to protect to end up in front of someone else's eyes, there'd be virtually nobody left here -- including many of the people who'd be doing the firing.
You mean like accidentally hitting someone with your car is pretty much the same thing as intentionally hitting someone with your car.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
