Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability in Electronic Health Records: An Integrative Review

  • Mojgan AzadiEmail author
  • Hossein Zare
  • Mohammad Jalal Zare
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 738)


Clinical health informatics is a new innovation in healthcare systems to transform paper-based systems to electronic systems. Health information is enhancing care coordination, quality and efficiency, but there are concerns related to protecting security and confidentiality of data. The main aspect of using a different electronic package in hospitals depends on important factors such as confidentiality, integrity and availability of health data.

This paper is an integrative review of the evidence to compare the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability (CIA) model in different Electronic Health Records [1] and identify the contributing factors in selecting different vendors in hospitals. The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model was used to appraise the quality of studies related to health informatics. Forty-five titles were reviewed and, after reviewing 27 abstracts and contents, seven papers were included in this study. According to the reviewed evidence, a health information framework includes “Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability Triad, MEDITECH, Cerner and EPIC were the most popular hospital software packages because of being user-friendly, accessibility, lower cost and high security.


Confidentiality Integrity and availability Electronic health records Integrative review 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    H. Lee, S. Kim, J.W. Kim, Y.D. Chung, Utility-preserving anonymization for health data publishing. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 17, 104 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Jammu, H. Singh, Improved AES for data security in E-health. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 8, 2016–2020 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.E. Wesołowski, P. Porwik, R. Doroz, Electronic health record security based on ensemble classification of keystroke dynamics. Appl. Artif. Intell. 30, 521–540 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice. Appendix C: Evidence Level and Quality Guide (2017). Accessed 08 March 2017
  6. 6.
    KLAS. Bi. Overalll Best in KLAS Awards (2017). Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.S. Kruse, B. Smith, H. Vanderlinden, A. Nealand, Security techniques for the electronic health records. J. Med. Syst. 41, 127 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kullar, D.A. Goff, L.T. Schulz, B.C. Fox, W.E. Rose, The “epic” challenge of optimizing antimicrobial stewardship: the role of electronic medical records and technology. Clin. Infect. Dis. 57, 1005–1013 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Meingast, T. Roosta, S. Sastry, Security and privacy issues with health care information technology, in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2006 EMBS'06 28th Annual International Conference of the IEEE (IEEE, 2006), pp. 5453–8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Shenoy, J.M. Appel, Safeguarding confidentiality in electronic health records. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 26, 337–341 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M.R. Tabassum, M.V.K. Burugari, WMSD: towards a new framework approach to privacy-preserving designed for approach in medical patient data. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 8, 265–268 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    K.T. Win, A review of security of electronic health records. Health Inf. Manag. 34, 13–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Zhou, V. Varadharajan, K. Gopinath, A secure role-based cloud storage system for encrypted patient-centric health records. Comput. J. 59, 1593–1611 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.R. Lipsitz, A.B. Landman, M.J. Tanasijevic, S.E. Melanson, The Benefits and Challenges of an Interfaced Electronic Health Record and Laboratory Information System (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L.B. Harman, C.A. Flite, K. Bond, Electronic health records: privacy, confidentiality, and security. Virtual Mentor 14, 712 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerner vs Epic: Battle of the EHR Titans (2017).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mojgan Azadi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hossein Zare
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mohammad Jalal Zare
    • 4
  1. 1.Clinical InformaticsThe Johns Hopkins University School of NursingBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.University of Maryland University CollegeUpper MarlboroUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Policy and ManagementThe Johns Hopkins Center for Disparities Solution, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School ofPublic HealthBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringAzad UniversityYazdIran

Personalised recommendations