• English

    Google Translate Disclaimer

    The Maryland Department of Information Technology (“DoIT”) offers translations of the content through Google Translate. Because Google Translate is an external website, DoIT does not control the quality or accuracy of translated content. All DoIT content is filtered through Google Translate which may result in unexpected and unpredictable degradation of portions of text, images and the general appearance on translated pages. Google Translate may maintain unique privacy and use policies. These policies are not controlled by DoIT and are not associated with DoIT’s privacy and use policies. After selecting a translation option, users will be notified that they are leaving DoIT’s website. Users should consult the original English content on DoIT’s website if there are any questions about the translated content.

    DoIT uses Google Translate to provide language translations of its content. Google Translate is a free, automated service that relies on data and technology to provide its translations. The Google Translate feature is provided for informational purposes only. Translations cannot be guaranteed as exact or without the inclusion of incorrect or inappropriate language. Google Translate is a third-party service and site users will be leaving DoIT to utilize translated content. As such, DoIT does not guarantee and does not accept responsibility for, the accuracy, reliability, or performance of this service nor the limitations provided by this service, such as the inability to translate specific files like PDFs and graphics (e.g. .jpgs, .gifs, etc.).

    DoIT provides Google Translate as an online tool for its users, but DoIT does not directly endorse the website or imply that it is the only solution available to users. All site visitors may choose to use alternate tools for their translation needs. Any individuals or parties that use DoIT content in translated form, whether by Google Translate or by any other translation services, do so at their own risk. DoIT is not liable for any loss or damages arising out of, or issues related to, the use of or reliance on translated content. DoIT assumes no liability for any site visitor’s activities in connection with use of the Google Translate functionality or content.

    The Google Translate service is a means by which DoIT offers translations of content and is meant solely for the convenience of non-English speaking users of the website. The translated content is provided directly and dynamically by Google; DoIT has no direct control over the translated content as it appears using this tool. Therefore, in all contexts, the English content, as directly provided by DoIT is to be held authoritative.

    Privacy Issues/EMRs/HIPAA

    EMRs can be used to prompt providers in different health care settings to screen for IPV and to the correct referrals, counseling and services to make sure that women get the help they need. 
    • Given the long-standing health effects of IPV, Health Information Technology is invaluable in coordinating between providers and providing seamless coverage to manage these long-term health effects.
    • Personal and sensitive health information should be de-identified whenever possible
    • Individuals should have the right to access, correct, amend, and supplement their own health information.  For IPV victims, the ability to review records may increase trust in a provider and a deeper understanding of how her confidentiality is being protected. 
    • Individuals should receive notice of how health information is used and disclosed, including specific notification of limits of confidentiality.  We underscore the necessity for reminders being sent per patient preference.  It is critical that providers do communicate with patients per the patient preference, as there are real safety and privacy concerns to be considered.  All patients who disclose IPV should be offered preference on how or if follow up communication should take place, and no mention of DV verbally or in writing should be made in the follow up reminders.  Victims should be permitted to provide alternative contact information for different types of communication.  If a woman receives her insurance coverage through her husband’s employer, his address and email may be primary on the account.  She should never be required to have communications go to someone other than who she chooses.
    • Providers must offer and respect patient’s choice of communication preferences, including by phone, by email, etc., and under what circumstances.  This should be built into the EMR as mandatory fields.
    • Privacy safeguards and consents should follow the data.
    • Providers should have broad discretion to withhold information when disclosure could harm the patient.
    • There should be strong and enforceable penalties for violations of privacy and consents both in a clinical setting and across information exchanges.
    For more information: