Hospital Infection Control

[RightPatient]

As part of a research project studying the implications of deploying third party hospital vendor technology in a clinical setting, I was curious to hear feedback from some of the forum participants on the topic of using biometrics for patient identification in hospitals (a growing trend in the industry) and how that relates to maintaining a hygienic environment for patients and staff, especially in the wake of the Ebola scare.

At issue is deploying biometric identification devices that require physical contact by a patient vs. deploying biometric modalities that do not require contact. In the overall context of maintaining a healthy, hygienic environment that avoids having patients come into contact with devices that other patients have physically touched, the questions that we are seeking feedback from patients/forum participants are:

1. If your hospital implemented a biometric device for identification that required you to physically touch it, would you be willing to make contact? Why or why not?
2. Even if hospital staff disinfected a biometric hardware device after each patient comes in contact, would you trust that the device was safe for you to now touch?
3. Considering the increased awareness of maintaining a safe and hygienic environment for patients because of the Ebola virus, if your hospital implemented a biometric patient identification device that did not require you to touch anything (e.g - a iris recognition camera) - would you be more willing to participate in the biometric patient identification initiative?

Thank you.

 

[LucyL]

No, No, No.

Hospitals still struggle with infection control. Purposely introducing a device that can only be seen as another route of potential spread seems unwise. And for the third - not even Home Depot can keep control of basic credit card information. NO WAY would I trust a hospital to keep my iris scan secure. Or let them have it. Not they, not anyone needs all that info.

One possibility - develop a no-touch fingerprint scanner. My index finger print is already out there, I might let a hospital have that, IF I don't have to touch anything.

 

[RightPatient]

Thank you for the feedback for our research project. Appreciate your candor and insights.

Perhaps it may be a general misunderstanding about biometric technology, but there are very strict encryption protocols to protect your biometric template information, and an image of your iris is never stored anywhere - rather it's a serious of unique data points that are mapped out to identify you upon return. Even if someone were to hack a biometric system and obtain your template, it is nearly impossible to reverse engineer and if that happens - it would be useless to them since there are "liveness detection" security protocols in place that wouldn't allow a third party to use that template and assume your identity.

In addition, curious as to why you would be comfortable with submitting a fingerprint rather than an iris photograph? Both are biometric modalities, but iris is considered to be the most accurate modality in the industry, and is considered a more stable biometric credential than a fingerprint, which are susceptible to cuts, scrapes, scars, dry skin, etc. that could render it ineffective for identification.

Thanks again for the feedback!

 

[LucyL]

In addition, curious as to why you would be comfortable with submitting a fingerprint rather than an iris photograph? Both are biometric modalities, but iris is considered to be the most accurate modality in the industry, and is considered a more stable biometric credential than a fingerprint, which are susceptible to cuts, scrapes, scars, dry skin, etc. that could render it ineffective for identification.

Exactly. Right, John Dillinger?

And, from the Wikipeida article on Iris Recognition

regarding security :

Researchers have tricked iris scanners using images generated from digital codes of stored irises.

Only a matter of time until they too get widespread misuse.

regarding privacy:

However, several academic institutions and biometric vendors are developing products that claim to be able to identify subjects at distances of up to 10 meters ("Standoff Iris" or "Iris at a Distance" as well as SRI International's "Iris on the Move" for persons walking at speeds up to 1 meter/sec)

This is NOT a good thing. No one needs to identify me as I walk down the street, or through the shopping mall, or into the stadium etc. And, it's hard to do that with a fingerprint.

 

[Blossom]

The biometric identification devices that require physical contact do trouble me especially after watching a coworker lick her finger and touch a sensor that I had to touch next. I agree with LucyL about the privacy though. Hopefully there can be some way to make infection control improvements while not being overly intrusive.
No matter what state of the art technology we develop when you have people doing what I witnessed my coworker doing it puts everyone at risk. A large part of it just comes down to hand hygiene and commonsense. Still, the less I have to touch the better.

 

[RightPatient]

Ok, thanks for the feedback, we appreciate it.

Just so you know, although there have been cases of iris cameras being fooled in the past, just like any other technology's evolution, the sophistication of iris cameras has advanced and most now have very strict liveness detection protocols that prohibit someone from using an image to fake the camera. Modern iris cameras have built-in features that detect a live person vs an image or photograph.

 

[honeybee]

Smells like a sales pitch to me.
There are better things to spend health care and tax payer money on, then another system to identify and keep track of people.