MCHK documents
- General Principles
- Doctor-Patient Relationship
- Evaluation and Treatment of Patient
- Informed Consent
- Prescription
- Medical Records and Confidentiality
- Relationship with Other Healthcare Professionals
- Privacy and Patient Confidentiality
- Limitations
Proper informed consent requires that all necessary information regarding the telemedicine interaction be explained fully to the patient in a clear and understandable manner, including how telemedicine works, its limitations and adequacy to meet the desired standard of care, other suitable alternatives available, privacy concerns, the possibility of technological failure including confidentiality breaches, protocols for contact during virtual visits, prescribing policies, and coordinating care with other healthcare professionals.
The Medical Council of Hong Kong Questions and Answers to the Ethical Guidelines on Practice of Telemedicine
Is it mandatory to conduct an in-person consultation with a patient before teleconsultation begins?
An in-person consultation prior to teleconsultation is advisable but not mandatory. However, if a teleconsultation is to be conducted without a prior in-person consultation, the doctor must take appropriate steps to establish a credible doctor patient relationship with the patient before practising telemedicine. The doctor must also consider the need for physical examination or other assessments of the patient and/or the need to have access to the patient’s medical records.
Cases
Over the past three years, the HA received two complaints regarding telehealth services that mainly involved patients not being clearly informed about the service workflow, such as arrangements regarding booking appointments, drug collection and referral letters.Development of telemedicine services, Legco Questions 2025-10-10
RISKS (to know and to minimize)
- 西醫陳凱旭離港無診症下 隔空發數百張疫苗豁免書 香港01 2022-03-17
- failed to conduct adequate or proper examination of the finger movements of the right hand of the Patient MC 22/321
- You issued an untrue or misleading document regarding your patient, Mr. GB (“the patient”) in that by a letter dated 4 August 2004 addressed to BUPA Health Insurance, you claimed that you saw the patient on 26 March 2004 when in fact you did not see the patient on that date but it was only a telephone consultation with the patient;
RISKS (to know and to minimize)
- New case vs FU case
- Video recording
- physical examination or other assessments of the patient
- Charging
