Verichip

Running head: VeriChip (chip) We Can But Should We' Deborah Cupp Chamberlain College of Nursing NR 361: Nursing Informatics Summer B 2011 In this report I will examine the human implant device known as the Verichip (chip) and discuss the pros and cons of its usage. The VeriChip Corporation developed the verichip to reduce the issues surrounding patient safety, identification, and accuracy of patients’ history of diseases, and medications. Although the digital era has evolved with advancement in technology, researching the pros and cons of patient safety will be the goal of this report. The VeriChip is a small human implantable radio frequency identification device (RFID) microchip, approximately the size of a piece of rice, which is injected into the subcutaneous tissue of the patient (Thede, 2010, p. 440). According to the author, the VeriChip is used in patients with chronic diseases like diabetes mellitus, stroke, Alzheimer patients, and those with other implanted devices such as pacemakers and joint replacements (Thede, 2010, p.440). According to Applied Digital (2000), a specialized VeriChip scanner displays a16-digit code (identification number) when scanned approximately 300 feet away. The VeriChip transmits information via telephone, internet, or to a secure data-storage site. The VeriChip accesses an individual’s information like medical history, diseases, allergies, and medications. According to Albrecht (2008) Verichip claims FDA approval, though the VeriChip was approved by default without testing at any level, as the Verichip was not considered a ‘regulated medical device’. The Verichip claims to save lives, enhance security and improve quality of life, but research shows this medical device may not be too secure for patient safety. The Verichip centralizes information into a database and provides patients’ medical information in a quick and accurate manner, referred to as a ready source of data which can be retrieved in emergency medical situations (Thede, 2010, p.370). The VeriChip has biometrics capabilities which identify patients’ biological or physical characteristics, fingerprints, retina characteristics, face or voice points (Thede, 2010, p. 370). It suggests improved care and reduced cost by limiting the time spent on obtaining patients medical information from various sources. Improved communication regarding medical information will be complete and accurate, showing the latest results of procedures or surgeries of patients. The VeriChip could save lives with readily data available to identify patients, inform of allergies, and medical diagnoses. (The HWN Team 2009). However, some finding suggests the opposite. The major concerns of the VeriChip are data security and privacy rights. According to Albrecht (2008) antichip organizations advocate against the chip and speak out loudly against the invasion of privacy rights. Albrecht (2008) contends RFID is a major threat to privacy and civil liberties. Also Thede, (2010), contends the American Civil Liberties and religious groups oppose the use of VeriChip because of privacy rights and the theme of “Big Brother” type operation and see this as a tool utilized to tag everyone (p.441). According to Albrecht & McIntyre (2004) medical data could be used against a person in cases of insurance coverage and with the future implementation of the genetic data in EMR, it only escalates the fear of invasion of privacy. As suggested by Jones (2011), data hacking and stolen identities are evident by two hackers, Annalee Newitz and Jonathan Westhues. These two hackers demonstrated the ability to clone a VeriChip at the 6th Hope Conference once the chip was scanned. According to the Albrecht (2008), the VeriChip is incompatible for patients who need an MRI. The FDA's Primer on Medical Device Interactions with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems suggests, “electrical currents may be induced in conductive metal implants" that can cause "potentially severe patient burns" (Albrecht, 2008). The author reports that the Verichip Company obtains patient’s signature to waive their rights to hold the company of VeriChip liable for any adverse effects from the implant. These finding suggest the VeriChip is unsafe for some patients. Although the Verichip positives seem to outweigh the negatives, patient privacy is the main issue. After researching the pros and cons of the VeriChip, my plan is to educate staff on data security and input of accurate data (Thede, 2010, p.371). Nurses need to be involved in protecting patient information, staying current with legal and ethical issues, providing input on the code of ethics, and advocating for policy changes. A crucial point is to educate patients and inform them of their rights and facilitate better communication and understanding regarding the VeriChip. The development of a stronger encryption algorithm will help to ensure a more secured database by limiting third party access to patients’ medical records. The performance of audit trails to identify “peeking” and hiring “white hat hackers” will identify security weak points (Thede, 2010, p.371-372). Technology has advanced in the healthcare system. The VeriChip contain a lot of pros for the healthcare industry. However, the main issues of data security, patient privacy, and ethical issues may prevent the widespread use of products like the VeriChip. References: Albrecht, K. (2008). Microchip implants. Answers to frequently asked questions. www.antichips.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011. Albrecht, K. & McIntyre,L. (2004). FDA letter raises questions about verichip safety,data security. www.spychips.com/devices/verichip-fda-report.html. Retrieved July 29, 2011. Health WorldNet, Inc. (2009). Electronic Medical Records: the pros and cons. Retrieved from http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/electronic-medical-records-the-pros-and-cons/'C=6238. Retrieved July 28, 2011. Jones, N. (2011)Verichip fact sheet. http://noverichipinside.com/. Retrieved July 28, 2011. Thede, L.Q. & Sewell, J.P.  (2010). Informatics and nursing.  3rd ed.  Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.