Considering privacy and effectiveness of authorization policies for shared electronic health records

Thomas Trojer, Basel Katt, T. Schabetsberger, R. Breu, Richard Mair
{"title":"Considering privacy and effectiveness of authorization policies for shared electronic health records","authors":"Thomas Trojer, Basel Katt, T. Schabetsberger, R. Breu, Richard Mair","doi":"10.1145/2110363.2110425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central building block of data privacy is the individual right of information self-determination, once these information identify individual persons and can therefore be considered as sensitive. Following from that when dealing with shared electronic health records (SEHR), citizens, as the identified individuals of such health records, have to be enabled to decide what medical data can be used in which way by medical professionals. In this context individual preferences of privacy have to be reflected by authorization policies enforced to control access to personal health records. We see two potential challenges, when enabling patient-controlled access control policy authoring: First, an ordinary citizen is considered a non-security expert, thus not necessarily aware of implications of her/his actions of defining access control to protect personal health data. Second, permissions to access medical data are necessary to support the daily routines of medical personnel. The better the health-care information system supports these work procedures the more effective and useful it is. There should be a balance between access restrictions through privacy settings and required access permissions in order to allow the system to be effective. In this paper we present a case study in the context of SEHR in Austria. In this scenario we identify different types of authorization policies to support individuals' privacy. Patient privacy is an important factor in access decision making, but in order to ensure the privacy - effectiveness balance, citizen-authors of policies should be informed about implications of their privacy settings on the underlying information system. To ensure this balance, policies need to be analysed. In this paper we describe a policy analysis method based on generated rules to evaluate the consequences of citizens privacy settings. Analysis results can then be used to inform and support a citizen during the policy authoring process.","PeriodicalId":90523,"journal":{"name":"IHI ... : proceedings of the ... ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium","volume":"21 1","pages":"553-562"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IHI ... : proceedings of the ... ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2110363.2110425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

A central building block of data privacy is the individual right of information self-determination, once these information identify individual persons and can therefore be considered as sensitive. Following from that when dealing with shared electronic health records (SEHR), citizens, as the identified individuals of such health records, have to be enabled to decide what medical data can be used in which way by medical professionals. In this context individual preferences of privacy have to be reflected by authorization policies enforced to control access to personal health records. We see two potential challenges, when enabling patient-controlled access control policy authoring: First, an ordinary citizen is considered a non-security expert, thus not necessarily aware of implications of her/his actions of defining access control to protect personal health data. Second, permissions to access medical data are necessary to support the daily routines of medical personnel. The better the health-care information system supports these work procedures the more effective and useful it is. There should be a balance between access restrictions through privacy settings and required access permissions in order to allow the system to be effective. In this paper we present a case study in the context of SEHR in Austria. In this scenario we identify different types of authorization policies to support individuals' privacy. Patient privacy is an important factor in access decision making, but in order to ensure the privacy - effectiveness balance, citizen-authors of policies should be informed about implications of their privacy settings on the underlying information system. To ensure this balance, policies need to be analysed. In this paper we describe a policy analysis method based on generated rules to evaluate the consequences of citizens privacy settings. Analysis results can then be used to inform and support a citizen during the policy authoring process.
考虑共享电子健康记录授权策略的隐私性和有效性
数据隐私的一个核心组成部分是个人的信息自决权,一旦这些信息确定了个人,因此可以被视为敏感信息。据此,在处理共享电子健康记录(SEHR)时,必须使公民作为这种健康记录的确定个人能够决定医疗专业人员可以以何种方式使用哪些医疗数据。在这种情况下,必须通过授权政策来反映个人的隐私偏好,以控制对个人健康记录的访问。在启用由患者控制的访问控制策略编写时,我们看到了两个潜在的挑战:首先,普通公民被视为非安全专家,因此不一定意识到她/他定义访问控制以保护个人健康数据的行为的影响。其次,访问医疗数据的权限是必要的,以支持医务人员的日常工作。卫生保健信息系统对这些工作程序的支持越好,就越有效和有用。在通过隐私设置的访问限制和所需的访问权限之间应该有一个平衡,以便使系统有效。在本文中,我们提出了奥地利SEHR背景下的一个案例研究。在这个场景中,我们确定了不同类型的授权策略来支持个人隐私。患者隐私是访问决策中的一个重要因素,但为了确保隐私与有效性的平衡,政策的公民作者应该被告知他们的隐私设置对底层信息系统的影响。为了确保这种平衡,需要对政策进行分析。在本文中,我们描述了一种基于生成规则的政策分析方法来评估公民隐私设置的后果。然后,分析结果可用于在政策制定过程中通知和支持公民。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书