Disclosure of pateint confidentiality

securityguy

Cooper18 wrote: »

It's easier to ask the question then get into an explanation of the need for a test, plus I must (legally) ask it. I thought developing a poker face was lesson one when joining the NHS

I thought lesson one was getting appropriate informed consent for procedures.

Cooper18

securityguy wrote: »

I thought lesson one was getting appropriate informed consent for procedures.

Not sure what you're getting at?

securityguy

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Well my first thought is, given this sounds like a standard appointment letter, that the daughter's dob has triggered a standard addressee format of sending the letter to the parents or guardian of... rather than this being a stupid error made by a person.

Of course the daughter needs to be the one to make the compliant....

If an ante-natal unit has automated systems that ignore Gillick competency, nearly thirty years after the judgement, then they deserve everything that they get thrown at them.

securityguy

Cooper18 wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at?

If you're saying you don't explain why the procedure is necessary, in what way is the consent "informed"?

Cooper18

securityguy wrote: »

If you're saying you don't explain why the procedure is necessary, in what way is the consent "informed"?

Where did I say that?

securityguy

"It's easier to ask the question then get into an explanation of the need for a test"

I assume the "then" is a typo for "than". I could be wrong.

Cooper18

securityguy wrote: »

"It's easier to ask the question then get into an explanation of the need for a test"

I assume the "then" is a typo for "than". I could be wrong.

No, it's not a typo. I was explaining why someone would ask the question when they would have to do the test anyway. So you don't just tell them to give you a sample, you ask the question, sign your documents THEN explain (if its still necessary and you haven't already covered it) WHY the test needs to be done. Those assumptions are pesky things.

FBaby

Cooper18 wrote: »

Our system automatically addresses the letter to the patient - regardless of their age. To be honest we'd send it out to a 14 year old asking for confirmation of receipt (ring us) and if they want mum or dad to phone on their behalf then fine. I wouldn't send a letter to a 16 year old addressed to their parent unless I knew beforehand they weren't Gillick competent.

And that is when you can get into problems the other way around and send a 12yo a letter to tell them their biopsy came back fine when they had no idea they had suspected cancer. Its not about whether communication should go directly to the patient or directly to the parent on a systematic basis, its about having systems in place so the clinician ask who correspondence should be addressed to and insuring that this is recorded and followed through without error.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

skintchick wrote: »

That timescale doesn't ring true, sorry.

My experience of being pregnant (six pregnancies so far) is that you get a positive test around week 5/6. You call the Gp surgery and they won't book you for a booking in till 9 weeks in most areas.

You can;t book a scan till the hospital has your notes. They get these from the MW, who fills them in at your booking in.

I cannot see how your DD has a scan booked if she only got a positive test 3 days ago. If her scan is for 4 weeks' time that would make her around 8 weeks now.

Even if she had had a booking in, I can't see she's had time to get a positive test, phone the GP, book a MW appointment, get the notes to the hospital (which round here takes a full week), and then get a letter about a scan, whcih in itself would take a few days to process.

Sorry but I think she's known about this longer than she's telling you.

Not necessarily.

She could have gone to the doctor/cash clinic (contraception and sexual health) and had a positive test.

First question: when was your last period? 'Ummmmm.'

Second thing: ok, so we need to find out how far along you are.

Person makes phone call/goes to the online booking to clinic. In front of patient is quite likely. Gives the details. Records are set up, scan appointment requested at the same time. Job done.

The appointment letter is created and goes into the post that night, arrives on the doormat two days later, giving someone a big shock.


So it might actually be the referrer who overlooked updating the records to send correspondence directly to the patient and not their mum.

It is a risk, however, that both hospital and referrer should address. You/she could contact the head of the department as they would have a lot of problems had an attack resulted from this. As well as pals.

embob74

With regards to the timescale of getting a scan I agree with Jojo.

I contacted my doc when I was pregnant, was referred to MW who then booked me in for my 12 week scan.
My friend however managed to get a dating scan at 7 week. I'm not really sure why as she was told the scan might not show anything at this early stage but it does prove that it can happen very quickly.
And as we know it's a postcode lottery as to how efficient/quick the local PCT are in arranging appointments.