MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028424645 · doi:10.1037/a0024052

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLegal ethicsEngineering ethicsEpistemologyLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from 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). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207