Some of the healthcare workers in our research wonder about the legal implications of using their personal phones informally. For example, some wonder if they could be punished for offering advice to patients and colleagues through informal channels such as WhatsApp.
One pharmacist in the UK asked the following question:
“[What if] someone answered and that was the wrong answer, but no one corrected you, and if something had gone wrong with […] the case, who would take the responsibility for that? Because officially you weren't on‐call on that day, you were just helping [….]” (Rathbone 2020, in Glenton 2024).
We heard from one pharmacist in the UK, but this is arguably not very illuminating for us. I would love to hear the views of health workers from our primary research in Uganda.
QUESTION: In your setting, do healthcare workers in your setting have concerns about the legal implications of using their mobile phones informally? Are these concerns similar to those from the UK and elsewhere?
COMMENT (NPW): I was surprised to hear that 'some health workers wonder if they could be punished for offering advice to patients and colleagues through informal channels such as WhatsApp'. What seems to be needed is clear guidance on what health workers do (or don't do) with their personal mobile phones. This guidance will presumably vary from one country to another, and from one setting to another. From what I understand so far, clear guidance is the exception rather than the rule.
The issue is likely not whether advice is given, but what are the implications of giving the wrong advice. Such advice might be given face-to-face, in a voice call, or written. If such advice leads to a complaint or a negative health outcome, the health worker may bear legal responsibility. And if the advice is written, it will likely carry greater weight as evidence than advice given face-to-face.
There are two issues (a) whether it is appropriate or not for the health worker to be using a personal mobile phone for advice to patients/families at a distance (and, if not, then there should be a workable alternative method for doing so); and (b) the actual content of that advice (which is arguably much more important than the medium by which the advice is given).
What do you think?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org