Dr Megan Prictor1
1University Of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia
Biography:
Dr. Megan Prictor is a senior lecturer at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, and Co-Director of the Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) research programme. Her work focuses on the nexus of new health technologies, particularly clinical technologies, and the law. She has published on topics including dynamic consent for research, health data governance, data breach notification, and healthcare consultation recording. She was previously a managing editor for Cochrane, overseeing systematic reviews in the area of doctor-patient communication and consumer engagement in health.
Abstract:
Background:
Recordings of healthcare consultations can have a range of patient benefits, improving understanding of diagnosis and treatment, satisfaction with care, and adherence to recommendations. Recent technological developments in ‘AI scribes’ also hold the promise that recordings can improve the efficiency of healthcare practice. There is concern, however, about whether, and how, recordings might be used in legal disputes. We have previously posited that recordings should reduce the emergence of disputes and speed their resolution, but little is known about the relationship between consultation recording and litigation.
Aim:
To examine the effects of healthcare consultation recordings in legal disputes in Australia.
Methods:
We searched legal databases to August 2024. Court reports (any Australian jurisdiction) were retrieved and assessed in full text. Cases were included if they referred to an audio or video recording of any part of a healthcare consultation, except recordings solely for clinical assessment purposes (eg. colposcopy).
Results:
More than 70 cases were reviewed. Cases were diverse but mainly concerned personal injury, family law, and healthcare professional misconduct. Recordings were often made amid an ongoing dispute. Courts varied in their approach to admitting recordings (whether lawfully or unlawfully made) and their use of recordings in resolving a matter. Routine consented recordings in healthcare were not used in the reviewed cases.
Conclusion:
Healthcare consultation recordings are sometimes utilised in litigation. Courts approach the admission and evidential use of recordings inconsistently. Consented recordings made to improve patients’ experience of care appear unlikely to give rise to legal disputes.