Letters | How Hong Kong can turbocharge e-sharing of medical records
- Readers discuss plans to upgrade the government’s eHealth system, and the fine line between an independent review and advertising
Launched in 2016, eHealth is a system that allows healthcare providers to access patients’ records in public and private healthcare facilities with the patient’s authorisation, thus helping reduce medical errors.
Registration figures for eHealth across the city look good. All public and private hospitals and nearly 3,000 private healthcare organisations have registered to use the platform, involving about 5,400 service locations and 80 per cent of the total number of registered doctors. In addition, 80 per cent of Hong Kong’s population have also registered for the service.
However, of the 6 million registrants, more than 70 per cent have not given “sharing consent” to private healthcare providers that would authorise private doctors to upload their medical records. As a result, information uploaded by private medical organisations accounts for less than 1 per cent of the data on the platform, which “has become an obstacle” to providing “continuity of care”, according to the Health Bureau.
One of the reasons is privacy concerns, according to local patient rights concern groups. Privacy and data ownership of digital health records are issues that remain unresolved in many places.
For example, could family members of patients with a sensitive medical history request their digital health records be taken offline and removed from the research pool? If so, would research on patients with certain diseases be comprehensive enough to draw conclusions?
The success of the digital health records system depends on trust between the public and the government. Some scholars have suggested the public should own and have control over personal health records. At the same time, members of the public are encouraged to discuss their concerns to increase understanding of the protection measures in force. This will help more people embrace this new technology and enable public funds to be spent more effectively.
Dr Winnie Tang, adjunct professor, faculties of engineering, social sciences, and architecture, University of Hong Kong
KOL ethics in need of attention
Recently, there was some discussion online about two key opinion leaders (KOLs) who reviewed the same restaurant and came to different conclusions about the quality of the food. Both said they had paid for the meals out of their own pockets.
A YouTuber who goes by the name of Martin, and runs the channel Dim Cook Guide which has over a million subscribers, was not allowed to make a video in a particular restaurant because of operational constraints. However, another YouTube channel, Perfect Continuous Eat, could freely film in the restaurant, capturing its decor and vibe. While Martin was not impressed with the food, Perfect Continuous Eat praised it.
One wonders whether these food reviews should be considered advertisements. Today, KOLs use social media to promote products and services. Some are clearly advertisements. However, it is less clear when KOLs behave like regular consumers and emphasise that they have paid for the food in a restaurant themselves and are simply sharing their personal experience, for example.
Being a KOL is now a viable career. These people spend a lot of time discovering interesting topics and making videos of high quality, which requires some investment in professional production tools. It’s not surprising that they expect to be compensated. They offer advertisers access to a specific audience that might be suited to certain goods and services.
However KOLs should clearly declare their interests if they are paid to promote a product or service, or risk losing credibility eventually.
Jack Chung, Sham Shui Po
