Just one or two thoughts about the logically interesting query. They may not
be the solution, but were sparked by our experience last year when bringing in
new software that did not allow us to keep the *two* names of next-of-kin which
had been used for decades. So what did we do? Drop it to one. And since the
new software called it "Emergency Contact" we also figured that "Next-of-kin"
was rather an old and possibly misleading/embarrassing term anyway, and reduced
all details.
So in this context, maybe it is worth thinking laterally and asking whether it
would be enough to ask just for an emergency phone number. The percentage rate
of uses of "next of kin" numbers is infinitesimal, I would think, and - worst
case, with totally scrupulous procedures - you would be able to use the number
and confirm the relationship with the person at other end, possibly using
call back). (Again, we had always asked for address, but the whole
implication of this info is that it is an emergency situation.)
This might seem extreme. Maybe to ask for a contact number plus a surname
(or indeed, relationship detail only) would be another way - not exactly
allowing ready access, especially if the name is buried in a form
dedicated to someone else.
The other point to bear in mind, and which again was brought to light by our
review last year, is that "next-of-kin" details are probably one of the least
accurate and up-to-date elements of record keeping anyway - so if you do go in
for this, you would need even more checking than you thought! So it seems to
me that - not only for DPA reasons but also for sheer practicality - it is best
to limit the data in this "box".
----------------------
Dr Trevor Field
Senior Assistant Secretary
University of Aberdeen
++44 (0)1224 272077
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|