Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
23/06/2026 7:23 pm
TL;DR: Identity and access challenges across the care journey are positioned as interconnected rather than separate operational issues, with the central message that access, patient identity, and compliance problems are linked, according to Imprivata. For IAM and access teams, the relevant question is how to govern identity across clinical workflows without breaking care delivery.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should healthcare teams govern access across the care journey?
A: Healthcare teams should govern access as an end-to-end workflow, not as a one-time authentication event.
Q: Why is privileged access so hard to govern in clinical environments?
A: Privileged access is hard to govern in clinical environments because operational urgency, third-party support, and device administration often create pressure for standing access.
Practitioner guidance
- Map identity controls to the care journey Document where patient, clinician, vendor, and device identities are created, verified, used, and retired across the care flow so access controls match real operational steps.
- Separate privileged access by use case Isolate clinical, support, and vendor privileged access paths so standing access, emergency access, and maintenance access are reviewed on different schedules and with different approvers.
- Tie access evidence to clinical context Require access reviews to include the operational reason for access, the workflow stage, and the identity type involved so audit evidence explains why access existed.
What to expect at the briefing
Imprivata's full event coverage covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Session-level discussion of identity and access challenges across clinical workflows
- Practical examples of how healthcare access models support care delivery and compliance
- Event-specific speakers, agenda elements, and session timing that help teams decide whether to attend
- The vendor’s own framing of the issues it wants healthcare practitioners to prioritise
👉 Register for Imprivata Connect to explore identity and access challenges in healthcare →
Identity and access in healthcare: what Imprivata Connect is addressing?
Explore further
25/06/2026 3:21 am
Healthcare identity fails when access is treated as a point control instead of a journey control. The source topic makes clear that the real problem is not one login gate but the movement of identity across registration, treatment, support, and discharge. In practice, security teams inherit fragmented controls that do not line up with clinical workflow, which creates blind spots in both access and accountability. The implication is that healthcare identity governance has to be designed around care flow, not around a single authentication event.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be accountable for vendor access in healthcare systems?
A: Vendor access should be jointly owned by security, application, and operational teams, but the business system owner must remain accountable for why access exists. Third-party support should never sit outside lifecycle control. If no one can explain the access purpose, the access scope is already too broad.
👉 Read our full editorial: Imprivata Connect reframes identity access challenges in healthcare
