CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Ethics and bioethics in healthcareElectronic Health Records SystemsMedical and Health Sciences Research

Ethical Guidelines for Use of Electronic Mail Between Patients and Physicians

Bovi, Amy M.·2003·The American Journal of Bioethics
DOI 10.1162/152651603322874771
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This report examines the ethical implications of electronic communication, focusing on the use of electronic mail (e-mail), considers its impact on a previously established patient-physician relationship, and the limitations in using e-mail to create a new patient-physician relationship. In its recommendations, this report offers guidance to physicians who use electronic mail to communicate with patients and online users. These guidelines maintain that e-mail should not be used to establish a patient-physician relationship, but rather to supplement personal encounters. When using e-mail, physicians hold the same ethical responsibilities to their patients as they do during other encounters and that information must be presented in a manner that meets professional standards. The report requires that physicians notify patients of e-mail's inherent limitations and that patients be given the opportunity to accept these limitations prior to the communication of privileged information. Finally, physicians should be aware of privacy and confidentiality concerns when using e-mail to communicate with patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/152651603322874771

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is questionable to establish a patient-physician relationship only through social media, just as establishing one by email outside an existing relationship raises concerns about the relationship's integrity, trust, and the patient's best interests.

    “Just as establishing a patient-physician relationship via email outside of a preexisting relationship may be medically and ethically objectionable because of questions about the integrity of the patient-physician relationship, trust, and the patient's best medical interests, 65 so comes into question establishing a relationship solely via social media.”

    From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [65]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bovi, A. M.
Corresponding author
Bovi, Amy M.
Venue
The American Journal of Bioethics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-08
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
43-47
ISSN
  • 1526-5161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-0075
DOI
10.1162/152651603322874771
OpenAlex
W2152299902
Cited by
48
References
6
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
email, physician-patient relationship, medical ethics, physician-patient communication, online communication, privileged information, patient privacy, confidentiality
MeSH terms
Communication, Confidentiality, Health Services Accessibility, Physician-Patient Relations, Social Change, United States, Guidelines as Topic, Electronic Mail

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review