← Volver al blog
Derecho y leyesAlta

Microsoft Teams in hospitals: Approve a defined use, not a product label

Administrative meetings and clinical case conferences need different assessments. Check contracts, access, recordings and the actual configuration.

Revisión editorial:

El texto de este artículo está disponible en inglés en esta versión del sitio.

Contexto y fuentes

Risk-based data security depends on information, participants and access paths, not simply the conference application's name. A clinical discussion therefore needs its own assessment rather than relying on an unrestricted product endorsement. [2]

Section 203 of the German Criminal Code allows necessary involvement of external service providers under conditions. A processing contract and professional-secrecy assessment address related but different requirements. Establish who participates, why access is necessary and how confidentiality is secured. [1]

EDPB guidance on Article 48 GDPR explains that a foreign authority's order does not automatically provide a European basis for disclosure. This is not an indiscriminate prohibition of every cloud offering with a US connection. [3]

Alcance y límites

This article neither certifies Teams as a whole nor presents historical regulator findings as a current universal verdict. Check the actual version, contract and encryption mode. Managing a storage key is not automatically equivalent to end-to-end encryption.

Explicación sencilla

Fictional example: A hospital approves project meetings but separately assesses case conferences with patient information, including participants, guest access and recordings.

Recomendaciones prácticas

Our recommendation: Maintain a scoped approval matrix. Review contracts, administrators, subprocessors and settings with IT, privacy and clinical owners. Disable unnecessary recording, transcription, external sharing and extensions.

Verify encryption for the actual meeting mode rather than assuming one feature covers every chat and file. Test guest access using fictional data. Record residual risks and review triggers such as a new AI feature, changed purpose or product update.

Fuente primaria / referencia

  1. [1] § 203 StGB: Verletzung von Privatgeheimnissen
  2. [2] EDPB: Secure personal data, technical and organisational measures
  3. [3] EDPB Guidelines 02/2024, Version 2.1 (Juni 2025): Article 48 GDPR