Wrong Side, Divorced Parents, a Subpoena, and a Co-Signed Note
Devon Marsh, PT, treated 15-year-old Kayla R. for 12 visits after a right ankle fracture. Kayla's mother has sole legal custody and signed the consent and plan of care; her father does not have custody and has not been involved in the case. On Tuesday the father comes to the front desk with a signed authorization and demands copies of the full record 'as Kayla's father.' On Wednesday the clinic receives a subpoena duces tecum, issued by a circuit court clerk at the request of the mother's attorney in a custody proceeding, demanding the same records. Reviewing the chart that afternoon, Marsh finds a June 3 daily note in which he wrote 'left ankle' when the operation was on the right, and a note written by Lisa, the licensed PTA, that Marsh co-signed on a day he was at a conference. That note documents grade III joint mobilization, which Marsh never ordered and which the plan of care does not include.
1. How should Marsh correct the wrong-side entry so that the record remains accurate and defensible?
Read the worked answer
The record has to be corrected so that the error is visible and traceable, never erased. On paper: draw a single line through 'left,' leaving the original legible, write 'right' beside it, and add the date, time, and initials plus a brief reason such as 'error; correct side is right ankle per operative note,' then date and initial the correction. No correction fluid, no overwriting, no recopying the page, no tearing out the sheet.
In an electronic record the mechanics differ but the principle does not: enter a dated addendum that identifies the original entry and states the correction, and leave the original entry and the audit trail intact. Some systems display addenda differently from the body of the note, which is acceptable; editing the original entry and wiping the prior version is not.
The reason for this discipline is that the chart may end up in front of a judge in the custody matter, a payer auditor, or the Board. A clean, dated, explained correction reads as competence. A silently altered note reads as concealment, and the concealment becomes the bigger problem. Marsh should also check whether the wrong-side error propagated into the plan of care, the flowsheet, or any letter to the physician, and correct those the same way.
2. How should the clinic respond to the father's request and to the subpoena? Are they the same question?
Read the worked answer
They are separate questions and must be handled separately.
The father: a parent is generally a personal representative who may access a minor's records, but that presumption depends on the parent's legal authority. Here the mother has sole legal custody and the father has none, so his signature on an authorization does not by itself establish authority to receive the record. The clinic should not release on the spot. The safe path is to verify custody documentation, tell the father the request is being reviewed, and route it to the privacy officer and counsel; if he produces a court order or the mother authorizes release, the answer changes.
The subpoena: a subpoena signed by a clerk at an attorney's request is not a court order, and it is not the same as patient authorization. Under HIPAA and Maryland's medical records confidentiality statute, the clinic must either obtain a valid authorization, obtain a court order, or notify the patient (here, the mother as personal representative) so she has an opportunity to object, and it should seek a qualified protective order before producing protected information. Counsel should draft the response and the cover letter. Producing the whole chart the day it arrives would be a privacy violation even though a subpoena was in hand.
3. What does Marsh's co-signature on the PTA's note signify, and what should he do about the joint mobilization he never ordered?
Read the worked answer
A co-signature is an attestation that the supervising therapist has personally reviewed the care and accepts it as within the plan and within the delegate's authority. Signing a note on a day he was at a conference, without reading it, is not supervision; it is documentation that misrepresents supervision, and it would look to a reviewer like an attempt to paper over an absence.
The joint mobilization is the more serious issue. Grade III mobilization is a skilled manual intervention requiring the therapist's clinical judgment, and a PTA may perform it only if it has been specifically delegated within the plan of care - a PTA cannot add a technique to the plan unilaterally, and a therapist cannot ratify an unauthorized technique after the fact by leaving the note undisturbed. The correct response is to correct the record the same way as the wrong-side entry, document what actually occurred and what Marsh did about it (patient reassessed, any adverse response noted, PTA counseled, plan clarified), and separate the clinical follow-up from the personnel follow-up. If the pattern repeats after counseling, the obligation to address it escalates, up to and including a Board complaint, because falsified supervision documentation is unprofessional conduct.