Your medical records are due to be sold off!

I tend not to post stuff like this but the implications of private organisations having access to our medical records isn't worth thinking about. From medical insurance being refused because of pre-existing conditions to being ruled out of a job simply because of your medical history. Please sign and share on.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-pat...?akid=3865.2421836.DkO_Kp&rd=1&sub=spread&t=4

 

Signed.

 

It would be a breach of the data protection act to disclose medical information unless you expressly allowed it. The only exception might be disclosure to the police or other relevant statutory body where it is in your interest or for the protection of the public, so for example you are in a psychotherapy session and you disclose to your therapist that you have fantasies about killing all bikers

That said I agree that this type of information no matter how anonymous should not be for sale I too will sign the petition

 

All the petition askes for is your email and post code, why would it need your post code??? Information gathering me thinks...

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

Nah if it was going for information gathering it'd be like the government petition site that used to ask for every detail about you. Full address, email, full name etc.

 

signed.

 

signed.

 

As it's not a government petition it makes me more suspicious....

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

All petitions go to government? So they should all follow a set format for official records, this isn't and puts me off

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

One of my friends had a phone call from a funeral director asking if he would be making use of their services soon. This was while his Nan was in hospital undergoing some treatment for cancer (thankfully she is now home, and not in need of the funeral company). Where did the information that the funeral director had come from? The hospital.

 

Click on the link below. This explains what's happening etc. Fill in the details section and get it to your GP. They then cannot disclose your medical records.
http://medconfidential.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/caredata_trifold.pdf

 

Could have been a twitter or facebook status.... scary thing is, we'll never know

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

 

Nope. He found out from the funeral director that the information came from the hospital. He said a quick google confirmed that this is happening to medical records.

 

Yeah, same as if you have an accident you'll get calls from ambulance chasers to handle your damages claim, hospitals are selling this info to databases.

 

or a neighbour/friend/relative it's serious professional misconduct to disclose that sort of information too many possible sources to say it was the hospital

 

The Police have to ask you for consent to your medical records and even then, it can only be in relation to a specific incident, not the full records.

 

This is true but there are certain circumstances in which a medic can disclose them without consent

To Quote Mr. ( not DR. ) Spock the good of the many out weighs the good of the few , or the one

Under certain circumstances, the disclosure of medical information is required by law. In these situations, consent from the patient is not required. You should not disclose any more information than is absolutely necessary. this is the Guidance one of the doctors defence unions give to their members:

The patient should be made aware of the disclosure, and informed about why you are disclosing the information, unless it is not practicable to do so; for example, if the patient cannot be contacted quickly enough, or if informing the patient would defeat the purpose of the disclosure. It is important to fully document any decisions about the information you disclose.

You should not disclose information about an identifiable third party (who is not a healthcare professional involved in the patient’s care) that may be contained in your patient’s records, without their consent, unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

If you have any concerns about disclosing information, you should contact MPS.

Disclosures required by statute
Legislation provides for the obligatory disclosure of information, under particular circumstances. Examples include the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

NHS Counter Fraud investigations Under the NHS Act 2006, investigations into fraud in the NHS may require access to confidential patient information. The investigators have the power to require the disclosure of the relevant parts of a patient’s record, should they believe that this is important to the investigation.

Disclosures to the GMC – investigation of a doctor’s fitness to practise Under the Medical Act 1983, the GMC has the power to request access to a patient’s medical records for the purposes of an investigation into a doctor’s fitness to practise.

Unless you are the doctor under investigation, you are obliged to comply with that request. However, it would be wise to ask the GMC if the patient’s consent can be obtained before disclosing confidential information. Where a patient declines to consent to disclosure they should usually be informed that disclosure will still need to take place.

In certain circumstances, the coroner is required to investigate the circumstances of a death – for example, if the death occurred in a violent manner or in custody (for further information, see the MPS factsheet Reporting Deaths to the Coroner). You are obliged to disclose any information you may hold about the deceased that is likely to be relevant to the investigation.
Courts or litigation
Both civil and criminal courts have powers to order the disclosure of information in various circumstances. A judge or presiding officer of the court can require you to disclose patient information. You should highlight the lack of patient consent and should object to the judge or the presiding officer if attempts are made to compel you to disclose what appear to you to be irrelevant matters, eg, matters relating to relatives or partners of the patient who are not party to the proceedings. The patient whose information is sought should be told about the order, unless that is not practicable or would undermine the purpose for which disclosure is sought.

Reporting patients to the DVLA
The Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) is legally responsible for deciding if a person is medically unfit to drive, and needs to know if a driver has a condition, or is undergoing treatment that may now, or in their future, affect their safety as a driver. The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA about such a condition or treatment. If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis or will not inform the DVLA, you should speak to them, and if they continue to drive against your advice you should contact the DVLA and disclose any relevant information.

Justifiable disclosures in the public interest
The disclosure of information about a patient without their express consent may be justifiable, if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the patient’s interests in keeping it confidential.

In all cases, you must decide whether or not the possible harm caused to the patient – and the overall trust between doctors and patients – by disclosing this information will outweigh the benefits resulting from the disclosure.

You should try to ensure that the information is anonymised, if practicable, and that you are only disclosing information relevant to the purpose of the disclosure. Only in exceptional circumstances should non-anonymised data be disclosed.

You should attempt to seek the patient’s consent, but there are certain circumstances when this will not be possible – for example, if the patient lacks capacity, you are not able to trace the patient, obtaining consent undermines the purposes for which the disclosure was being made, or the disclosure must be made quickly, such as cases of detection or control of communicable diseases.

It is important to document any decision you make and your reasons for disclosing the information.

Disclosure to protect the patient or others from harm
The disclosure of a patient’s personal information may be in the public interest, if it is likely to protect individuals or society from risks of serious harm, such as serious communicable diseases or serious crime, to reduce the risk of death or serious harm to the patient or a third party, or as a result of gunshot or knife wounds.

If it has not been possible to seek the patient’s consent, you may disclose personal information without consent if the benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure outweigh both the public and patient’s interest in keeping the information confidential.

If the patient has refused consent to the disclosure, you should consider any reasons provided by the patient. If you still consider that disclosure is necessary to protect a third party from death or serious harm, you should disclose information promptly to the appropriate person or authority.

The ultimate decision about whether or not a disclosure was made in the public interest is determined by the courts. If you do disclose the information, and are required by the GMC to justify your decision, you need to ensure that your reasons are clearly documented. However, if the purpose of the disclosure is to protect an incompetent patient from serious harm, there is an expectation that you will disclose the relevant confidential information – and if you chose not to disclose the information, you may be required to justify why you did not do so.

Communicable diseases
If a patient refuses to allow you to inform someone outside the healthcare team of their infection status, you must respect their wishes unless you consider that failure to disclose the information will put healthcare workers or other patients at risk of infection.

You should pass information about serious communicable diseases to the relevant authorities for communicable disease control and surveillance, using anonymised information if practicable.

 

You typed all that in less than 14 minutes! I'm impressed! :lol:

I was involved with investigating a Doctor a few years ago and we had to inform the GMC that an investigation was taking place. They then had to apply through the courts to find out what the investigation was in relation to. I can't remember the process, but even though their subsequent investigation and ours were linked, it was a nightmare on the disclosure side.

 

Except that is what he was told by the funeral director.....

I know about data protection, and I was initially very much "bollocks" when my friend said it. I have seen something about this elsewhere though.