Family Fallout. Advice required

Guest101

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Betty absolutely did the wrong thing. That's another issue for me.

But Mick did something you should not tolerate in a partner. He should have discussed it with Betty first not immediately attempted to get his girlfriend's mum into trouble. He simply did not care about the consequences.

How can Fran possibly consider this man as partner material? He has no loyalty or concern for anyone except himself.

Wow. How far off the mark.

The person with no respect or loyalty is the mother in this hypothectical scenario. And she is also the person who did not consider the consequences.

The victim (Mick) has every right to complain, given the serious breach of privacy, data protection, trust & emplyment policy.

No-one needs someone's 'permission' to make such a complaint. And 'Mick' would be in his rights to walk from 'Fran' if she tried to dictate as such to him. (replace with generic / gender reversed names if you prefer, it's irrelevant the gender of the people)

LannieDuck

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

Betty works for a 'health organisation', so the patient records she has reason to access may not be 'her patients'. I access many different patient's records for a number of different reasons. It may not be immediately obvious to the investigators whether she, in fact, had reasonable justification to access Mick's record. Her manager might be able to answer that question (thereby avoiding having to give Betty the name), but I can conceive of circumstances under which the investigators need to give Betty the patient name to discover her reason (or lack thereof) for accessing that particular record.

I agree that the manager had no right to pass the information on without authority from the investigators. I'm uncertain whether the investigators themselves would have had authority to pass the complainant's name on if necessary for their investigation.

Edit: The bit in bold is untrue. It would help to know what Betty's job title actually is.

Guest101

LannieDuck wrote: »

Betty works for a 'health organisation', so the patient records she has reason to access may not be 'her patients'. - True, she could be in the PALS team investigating a complaint for example. However she needs reason to access those records. She is still bound by confidentiality, even if accessed the records legitimately. Given that there's no mention of 'Mick' being cared for, nor having contact with 'Fran' regarding his records, it seems unlikely she had any reason to do so.
I access many different patient's records for a number of different reasons. It may not be immediately obvious to the investigators whether she, in fact, had reasonable justification to access Mick's record. - It must always be immediately obvious. i.e. she left a note on the records. She saw the patient and was checking background. She was investigating a complaint. The reason must always be obvious. You should know this, it's worrying that you dont. The only way is if the organisation uses paper records and she works in the records office - in which case it's arguably worse as she defintely knows better.
Her manager might be able to answer that question (thereby avoiding having to give Betty the name), but I can conceive of circumstances under which the investigators need to give Betty the patient name to discover her reason (or lack thereof) for accessing that particular record. - Perhaps once the investigation is carried out. But that would take weeks and wouldn't be told to her by her Manager straight away. It would be put to her along with evidence.

I agree that the manager had no right to pass the information on without authority from the investigators - the patient.. I'm uncertain whether the investigators themselves would have had authority to pass the complainant's name on if necessary for their investigation.

The investigator's can pas sthe name on, as that's part of the complaints procedure. However they must be careful and use the NHS (or unique ref number if private care) number wherever possible. - so names could be used at engagement events for example.

Gingernutty

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

Guest101 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, Guest101, that's not correct.

I have access to patient records but have no contact with patients.

I work in an admin role and part of my job is to ensure the data is correct (alerts, allergies, DOBs, addresses, NOKs etc) and correct any duplications or mistakes.

Health Records staff, secretaries and ward clerks all have, to a greater or lesser extent, access to patient records for appointment details, letters and other contacts.

'Betty' may be an admin worker like me.

Guest101

Gingernutty wrote: »

Sorry, Guest101, that's not correct.

I have access to patient records but have no contact with patients.

I work in an admin role and part of my job is to ensure the data is correct (alerts, allergies, DOBs, addresses, NOKs etc) and correct any duplications or mistakes.

Health Records staff, secretaries and ward clerks all have, to a greater or lesser extent, access to patient records for appointment details, letters and other contacts.

'Betty' may be an admin worker like me.

I mistakenly belived (or possibly mistakenly) that the 'Betty' in this scenario was a clinial worker.

I know other have access to patient records, however you have reason to look at them. And you must justify that reason.

Looking up your daughters new fella isn't a good enough one.

Guest101

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

Yes, I absolutely agree that the mother was completely wrong. As I said.
But your mother is your mother. There's not much you can do about that and she was at least, acting in her daughter's best interests (probably!)

And as I said, that's a separate issue which I didn't address in my post. Just because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I condone it.

But the girlfriend can do something about this boyfriend. He does indeed have every right to complain but in the context, this was not the action he should have taken first and this does not bode well for the relationship.

I think you're missing my point.

Her doing this search is basically saying to her daughter: I dont trust your judgment, you arent capable of making the decision yourself and I will interfere in your relationship.

the fact she's her mother just makes that betrayal so much worse.

If one partner controls what the other does, that does not bode well for their relationship. Should not be asking permission to protect themselves.

pollypenny

scooby088 wrote: »

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

I was about to post the same thing!


If true I wonder what caused the mother to check the BF's medical records. I'm wondering if there is something in his behaviour which has led Betty to worry about her daughter with him.

DUTR

pollypenny wrote: »

I was about to post the same thing!


If true I wonder what caused the mother to check the BF's medical records. I'm wondering if there is something in his behaviour which has led Betty to worry about her daughter with him.

Even if there was, there is no authority to do so, the days of pressing buttons has long gone.

Guest101

pollypenny wrote: »

I was about to post the same thing!


If true I wonder what caused the mother to check the BF's medical records. I'm wondering if there is something in his behaviour which has led Betty to worry about her daughter with him.

Well instead of doing things the right way, 'Betty' is about to learn a very expensive lesson. - Well done Betty.

Lily-Rose_3

If the story in the original post is true, I don't understand why Betty's manager told Betty who had reported her. If this happened, then this is a horribly unprofessional company/establishment.

Also, (if it is true,) then the whole relationship between Betty and Fran and Fran's bloke is going to be a very fraught one!

I do actually remember something like happening in real life, (about 10 years ago.) Someone who worked at the doctors bleated and blabbed about someone she knew whose 13 year old daughter had had an abortion. Not sure of the ins and outs or how they found out it was her, but the woman at the surgery got the sack, and got into a LOT of trouble! It went to a tribunal and everything, and as I said, she got the sack and could only get minimum pay agency work after that, as no other employer would touch her.

There is an article here about some woman badly breaching confidentiality, and what happened after she did it. Apparently they have have training sessions on why you should not breach confidentiality! As if!!! What normal person needs a course to tell them this?! Anyone with a scrap of intelligence and common sense KNOWS not to blab personal details about people! In the career I was in for many years, I could have caused a storm with what I knew about people, but I never said anything to a soul: not even my husband.

http://www.firstpracticemanagement.co.uk/blog/posts/breaking-patient-confidentiality-idle-gossip-from-beyond-the-reception-desk/