Re-evaluating confidentiality: Using patient information in teaching and publications

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 115-121

  Draper, Heather ^a   Rogers, Wendy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; COMPETENCE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MORALITY; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT RIGHT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIVACY; PROFESSIONAL SECRECY; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLISHING; REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE;

EID: 14744296744     PISSN: 13555146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1192/apt.11.2.115     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. BMJ Publishing Group (2004) BMJ Editorial Policies. http//bmj.bmjjournals.com/advice/editiorial_policies.shtml.
2. Court, C. (1999) GMC finds doctors not guilty in consent case. BMJ, 311, 1245-1246.
3. General Medical Council (2004) Confidentiality: Protecting and Providing Information. http://www.gmc-uk.org/standards/secret.htm.
4. Rogers, W. & Draper, H. (2003) The ethics of confidentiality in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 220-224.
5. Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004) Advances in Psychiatric Treatment: Instructions for Authors. http://apt.rcpsych.org/misc/ifora.shtml.
6. Stone, D. (2001) Confidentiality, access to health records and the Human Rights Act 1988. In Healthcare Law: Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 (eds A. Garwood-Gowers, J. Tingle & T. Lewis), pp. 127-146. London: Cavendish Publishing.