Family Fallout. Advice required

fairy_lights

'Betty' should have thought of the consequences before she went snooping. 'Mick' was right to make a complaint, and presumably he made the complaint before they knew about the pregnancy and that 'Betty' was going to be his child's grandmother. But what's happened has happened,'Mick' is the father of 'Fran's' baby and there's nothing any of them can do to change that now - if 'Betty' has a problem with it then frankly she's just going to have to deal with it like the nosy adult that she is.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

PurpleGoldFish86 wrote: »

Management have told her it was him, that's why she called Fran to her last night. They'd given her his full name

This is where the fairy tale falls apart, it was a good read but this part is obviously rubbish. Back to the drawing board. Good luck making up another click-bait story.

Stevie_Palimo

No way would the Manager tell the person being complained about who actually filed the complaint, Sorry it is all hearsay and would not happen.

Lunar_Eclipse

PurpleGoldFish86 wrote: »

Absolutely agree with the above, Fran's mum was bang out of order.

Fran's feeling stuck in the middle though, she's going to need her mum more than ever, but mum now hates BF and there's a baby on the way. It's caused a massive rift that currently feels irreparable and Fran's feeling guilty for the situation. We also wonder whether Betty thinks Fran knew about it.

You asked what Fran can do. Stop worrying is my advice. She has no control in this whatsoever.

Mick didn't go behind Fran's back, he just didn't inform her (there's a difference.) He reported Betty for a 'crime'; she needs to face the consequences. It was all her own doing.

I really doubt this is going to affect Betty's pension. But seriously, what was she thinking: gross misconduct is serious.

Fran is in an uncomfortable position, but she has done nothing wrong. Mick has also done nothing wrong.

How Betty chooses to react to this and the baby is out of Fran's control. She should take comfort from knowing she and Mick have clear consciences.

Lunar_Eclipse

LilElvis wrote: »

Then "Mick" should lodge a complaint against "Betty's" manager.

This. Also gross misconduct. And I REALLY don't think this would happen. It just doesn't.

I think Betty is putting 2 and 2 together. Or has pulled in a 'favour', again not allowed!

theEnd

I hope Betty and Betty's manager get what they deserve. Probably been going on for years.

Guest101

LannieDuck wrote: »

I work with patient data. Betty would have been aware of the rules around accessing it, and (depending on the systems she uses) it'll probably be very easy to prove that she did.

The question will be whether she had a bona fide reason to access Mick's record. In order to answer that, she would have to know which record was in question. Maybe her manager could answer on her behalf to some extent, but if Betty's job is at risk (which it almost certainly is) I think the investigators probably had to give her the opportunity to explain herself fully, and in that circumstance I can't see any way around her being told his name

Given your role, you'll know the data belongs to the patient not the suregry/ trust or other organisation that holds it.

So unless Betty was treating Mick, she would have had zero authorisation to access the data in any way, shape or form.

An investigation is as follow:

Betty is notified that she is being investigated for improper access of patient records (no name or reason is needed)

She has the opprotunity to come clean at this stage.

The person(s) then investigate to see which records were accessed and if those people were in her care at the time (not just Micks information is checked)

Finally the investigation reports back to the manager, as to the results. A disciplinary can then take place if required.

Make-it-3

Maybe Betty wasn't told Mick's name by Management but put 2 and 2 together herself. Perhaps she realised she had slipped up when she was chatting to Mick.

I wonder if there was another motive for accessing his records in the first place other than just "nosiness"?

scooby088

I remember a thread a few months ago along the same lines, how would the boyfriend know records had been accessed.

Guest101

Make-it-3 wrote: »

Maybe Betty wasn't told Mick's name by Management but put 2 and 2 together herself. Perhaps she realised she had slipped up when she was chatting to Mick.

I wonder if there was another motive for accessing his records in the first place other than just "nosiness"?

Since this is made up, we'll just look at it from a neutral perspective.

Perhaps this person might've realise it themselves.

However, there is no legitimate motive to access this information.