MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2028424645 · doi:10.1037/a0024052

An updated account of the ethical and legal considerations of record keeping.

2011· article· en· W2028424645 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Taryn B. Bemister, Keith S. Dobson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyLegal ethicsEngineering ethicsEpistemologyLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Canadian literature is void of contemporary guidelines for clinical record keeping for psychologists, as the most recent article was published more than two decades ago (Eberlein, 1990). However, the techniques used in record keeping have greatly advanced, specifically with regard to the role of computers and the use of electronic documents. Furthermore, new legislation and guidelines have been developed in response to these technological advancements. The purpose of this article is to provide a concise, accessible, and up-to-date set of guidelines on record keeping in psychology. The professional and legal requirements of psychologists are discussed with regard to the use, content, access, ownership, and retention of records with special consideration given to electronic documents. Recommendations are made for Canadian psychologists that are consistent with the current legal and professional standards of the field. Keywords: record keeping, client files, electronic documents, Code of Ethics The Canadian literature is void of contemporary guidelines for clinical record keeping. Although books that contain information regarding record keeping have been published more recently (e.g., Evans, 2004 and Truscott & Crook, 2004), the most recent article dates back to 1990 (Eberlein, 1990). Eberlein's article was written largely in response to the establishment of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 1988; herein referred to as the Code of Ethics). However, two revisions of the Code of Ethics have been published (1999 and 2001), and the techniques used in record keeping have advanced, specifically with regard to the role of computers and the use of electronic documents. Beyond the above developments, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) was introduced in 2000, and it has modified the statutes relevant to records. Similarly, a draft of guidelines for psychologists who provide psychological services via electronic media was developed (CPA, 2006; to be finalized). The American Psychological Association (APA) set forth guidelines for record keeping in 2007 that address many of the issues surrounding client files, but the CPA is yet to develop a comprehensive document devoted to record keeping. The purpose of this article is to provide a concise and accessible resource on record keeping that is up-to-date with the advances that have occurred since 1990. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the issues related to record keeping and provides recommendations for Canadian psychologists. More specifically, the professional and legal requirements of psychologists are discussed with regard to the use, content, access, ownership, and retention of records with special consideration given to electronic documents. The implications of technological advances on client confidentiality and privacy are also considered. The suggestions made in this paper are consistent with the Code of Ethics, as well as legislative and provincial laws and regulations, including the Code of Conduct (or its equivalent) of each province and territory. While the Code of Ethics is aspirational in the principles, values, and standards it sets forth for psychologists, laws and codes of conduct outline minimally acceptable standards of behaviour for all members of society and professionals, respectively. Failure to follow the Code of Ethics, as well as the legislative laws and regulations, can result in professional negligence, or even criminal or civil liability. The serious nature of improper record keeping highlights the importance of an up-to-date document on the creation, use, and maintenance of client files, especially in light of the confusion noted by Evans (2004) on the chaotic legislation governing access to and the protection of health information in Canada. Although similarities prevail in the provincial legislations related to record keeping, psychologists are expected to be familiar with the requirements specific to their province or territory (see Table 1). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,979

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0070,012
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,005
Communication savante0,0100,006
Science ouverte0,0030,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,244
Tête enseignante GPT0,481
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207