recording hospital consultants

saving_pennies

Thanks for explaining that MightyB. I understand there are situations when it could be to protect the patient. I can see why your doctor didn't want you finding out third-hand that your condition was worse then you thought. I hope you are doing 'ok' now.

MightyB wrote: »

I only got the info when I looked at my file when the consultant was out of his office, :rotfl:

I've done this once as well. My GP wasn't impressed! :rotfl:

Savvy_Sue

saving_pennies wrote: »

Thanks for explaining that MightyB. I understand there are situations when it could be to protect the patient. I can see why your doctor didn't want you finding out third-hand that your condition was worse then you thought.

Surely the answer to that is to tell you first hand?

nolegion

I realise that this discussion is few months old but I wanted to emphasise a couple of legal points in case others should, like me, come across it via search engine later.

1. It is is not illegal for an ordinary patient to audio record a consultation in person with an NHS doctor for his or her own personal or legal purposes whether ‘openly’ or ‘covertly’. (Data Protection Act)

2. If such a recording is genuinely relevant to a matter in dispute then a court (or tribunal) can declare it admissible, and the weight of authority is in favour of its being admitted. (Amwell View School v Dogherty)

However, some doctors and\or their employers (eg. hospital trusts) behave very badly when they find patients want to record, despite the world’s biggest medical insurer (MPS) saying they should not try to resist the patient’s wishes in the matter, and despite the General Medical Council saying that doctors should only object in exceptional circumstances (where the process of taking a recording might somehow hamper examination or treatment). One hospital went public on threatening to ‘call the police’ a few years ago, and some GPs have even set about - quite illegally - trying to ‘ban’ such patients from their lists.

Personally, I see no reason at all why patients shouldn’t record their private appointments and many of us have encountered unprofessional behaviour which might well have been significantly ‘improved’ if the relevant doctors knew they were ‘on record’.

As a separate matter, the DWP have apparently concluded their ‘pilot’ of audio recording medical assessments for benefits purposes earlier this year, but (so far as I am aware) to date have refused to reveal the statistical outcome of that ‘survey’. As has been identified many time before at this website and elsewhere, it is not illegal to make a covert recording of such assessments but ‘HCPs’ are instructed to terminate the session if they find out, and the appointment willl be reported as a refusal by the claimant to be examined.

Richie-from-the-Boro

~ ~ "" concluded their ‘pilot’"" ~ ~

This pilot of Audio only was carried out in my area to what I would describe as a beautifully crude standard, for those who don't know the detail :

- handheld digital audio [ not audio & video ] recorder
- later to be transferred [ allegedly ] to a secure, encrypted computer and wiped from the digital recorder
- retained for 14 months after the date of the recording, along with departmental standards for supporting evidence
- during this 14 month period, a customer can request a copy of the recording for their own personal use
- request on the day or within the 14 months, CD copy sent by recorded delivery to the customer's home address
- customers must sign a non-disclosure to the public domain
- requests in writing, signed, with details of their name, national insurance number, home address and date of the recording
- copy given to Atos Complaints Team ref customer complaint or dispute as evidence or disputes the accuracy of their medical report
- Atos will not provide JC+ with a copy unless requested by the customer
- if requested by the customer the JC+ copy can be before the WCA decision / reconsideration / appeal
- JC+ will not accept the customers copy only one supplied by ATOS
- the customer can insist the recording is taken into account as evidence for WCA decision / reconsideration / appeal


The History

Harrington recommended a pilot of audio recording to improve the quality of assessments :

- 6 week pilot / 500 customers
- participation of customers and HCP's is / was optional
- ESA only customers / not WCA for the purpose of IB (IS) reassessment

________

Hearing impairment ?

Safetyone

Why bother with PALS all they do is brush the issue under the carpet and no one is non the wiser ,,,Go stright to the top and contact the CEO of the hospital concerned ,also at the end of the day you are entitled to be treated with diginity at all times yea I know some people are stronger than others when it comes to standing there ground no one should be treated with disrespect no matter what NHS department / Consultant is treating them like I said in the top line bypass PALS, rattle the top persons cage then things will change

cit_k

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

My understanding of audio / video recording without prior permission is that any clandestine evidence gathered this way is inadmissible as evidence in any tribunal scenario.

If I remember correctly there is an ATOS pilot running on exactly these lines, but the technical needs of the recording are oppressive & horrendously expensive. See appeal case known as CIB/3117. Additionally if you read the small print on ATOS documents you will find a clause saying that you '' waive your right to see medical information divulged to third parties ''. It plainly says that '' any doctor can refuse to reveal any or all of your medical records to you on the grounds that they feel it is not in your best interests to see them ''

ATOS do allow audio recording by pre-arrangement and on condition that the equipment used is a double tape deck type used by the police, and, that the equipment is operated by a qualified recording engineer to an exacting standard!

Id tape it anyway, you may not be able to use it, but, you are certainly better off with the info .. .. than without it.

Hi, what document from atos or dwp states

waive your right to see medical information divulged to third parties

out of interest, not seen that before.

I know doctors have a duty of care to hide any information that is considered harmful to a patient, but not seen any sign of them asking people to waive their rights entirely?

I had an assessment officially recorded by atos (before the recording trial) they used a triple deck evidential qualify machine, but had no sound engineer or calibration done. The assessor could not even figure out how to put the tape in the machine or switch it on for a while....

cit_k

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

~ ~ "" concluded their ‘pilot’"" ~ ~

This pilot of Audio only was carried out in my area to what I would describe as a beautifully crude standard, for those who don't know the detail :

- handheld digital audio [ not audio & video ] recorder
- later to be transferred [ allegedly ] to a secure, encrypted computer and wiped from the digital recorder
- retained for 14 months after the date of the recording, along with departmental standards for supporting evidence
- during this 14 month period, a customer can request a copy of the recording for their own personal use
- request on the day or within the 14 months, CD copy sent by recorded delivery to the customer's home address
- customers must sign a non-disclosure to the public domain
- requests in writing, signed, with details of their name, national insurance number, home address and date of the recording
- copy given to Atos Complaints Team ref customer complaint or dispute as evidence or disputes the accuracy of their medical report
- Atos will not provide JC+ with a copy unless requested by the customer
- if requested by the customer the JC+ copy can be before the WCA decision / reconsideration / appeal
- JC+ will not accept the customers copy only one supplied by ATOS
- the customer can insist the recording is taken into account as evidence for WCA decision / reconsideration / appeal


The History

Harrington recommended a pilot of audio recording to improve the quality of assessments :

- 6 week pilot / 500 customers
- participation of customers and HCP's is / was optional
- ESA only customers / not WCA for the purpose of IB (IS) reassessment

________

Hearing impairment ?

Do you know if they made the claimaint sign the document restricting the use of the recording to only purposes for benefit entitlement (ie no media use, no other lawful use (ie not for GMC complaints, courts, police etc, a clear attempt to pervert the cause of justice) unless it was directly related to obtaining the benefit in question?

They made me sign a document like that.

Richie-from-the-Boro

cit_k wrote: »

Do you know if they made the claimaint sign the document restricting the use of the recording to only purposes for benefit entitlement (ie no media use, no other lawful use (ie not for GMC complaints, courts, police etc, a clear attempt to pervert the cause of justice) unless it was directly related to obtaining the benefit in question?

They made me sign a document like that.

Before even the assessment begins the customer to signs a consent form agreeing to the recording of the assessment. A copy of the consent form will be provided to the customer and a copy will also be retained by Atos Healthcare along with the recordings of the assessment.

The customer (1) factsheet and the (2) explicit consent form the customer signs confirms that the (3) recording is only provided for the customer's own personal use and must not be put into the public domain.
_

I'm interested to see if these recording caveats are legally enforceable, a trib can certainly request and use them in their determination .. .. in which case its in the public domain anyway.

- clearly the audio recording is paying lip-service to Harrington
- its equally clear to me that if ATOS's medicals were quality assured they would not need the caveats
- the patients physical functions in the examination can not be seen or recorded by a microphone

Having said that I for one am happy that the ' brick wall ' ATOS erected has at least been breached, and maybe later we can look forward to a full audio / visual standard as per the police [ PaceNet ] recording in the future.

This kind of consent form signature is widely used throughout the world in medical / patient scenarios, even the ' wedding photography ' industry in this country and others use it to control / steal copyright of your personal images. All powerful parties wish to control the use of digital media recordings .. .. in the case of electronic publication, once the recording is in the public domain, its use cannot be controlled.