Fleur Fisher wrote:
> It wasclear at that meeting that STI/GUM clinics are dependant on patient
> identifiable data being kept truly confidential and not shared
Have reservations about this. Understand the concerns about the 'universal'
uncontrolled sharing that is the main point of this thread but also have
concerns about the other extreme of 'complete' confidentiality that
currently operates and has inherent dangers and nonsense in it.
Two recent examples:
1) Pt given incorrect information regarding result by GUM clinic because
they used confidential identifier so lab and GUM could not match up results
of samples they took with ones prev taken from same pt identified in own
name. One of these that had been duplicated was borderline so had been sent
for more sensitive test and produced strongly positive result. GUM's sample
also borderline but had not been tested further so reported as negative. Pt
was told negative and serious complications ensued.
2) Pt attended GUM clinic in one part of country then attends NHS in
another. Has been contacted by phone to say one sample sent unlabelled so
lab won't process and needs repeat but haven't said what test needed. Pt
contacts GUM clinic attended first who refuse to divulge info to clinician
pt now consulting "because of confidentiality" but finally give some
information to pt on phone and say that's OK because pt can give them
correct date of birth. Info given still leaves clinician dealing with pt
with incomplete picture and having to second guess what has already been
done.
We used to have similar nonsense and dangers from substance misuse services
but that seems to be history as are the dangers that used to arise from
their insistence on 'complete' confidentiality. So, please pursue the point
re NCR but not by blanket approval of the falsehood that these clinics are
'dependant' on not sharing patient information with anyone. The substance
misuse services used to claim exactly the same but that has been shown to be
a fallacy.
Andy
|