 |
 |
Many of the 'disclaimers' added on the end of emails are not chosn by the senders: Our hospital is in theprocess of buying the software to add a disclaimer on every piece of email sent from the hospital - because it cannot 'trust' its staff to add the disclaimer / not remove it from every email. The fact that the disclaimer was never added on every paper document leaving the hospital has escaped the management: WE are having disclaimers because everyone else does... TIM ************************************************************************** Prof. Tim Reynolds, Clinical chemistry Dept., Queen's Hospital, Belvedere Rd., Burton-on-Trent. tel: +44 (0) 1283 511511 ext 4035 fax: +44 (0) 1283 593064 email: [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: c=GB;a=NHS;p=NHS NATIONAL INT;dda:RFC-822=ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK; Sent: 12 January 2001 11:02 To: c=GB;a=NHS;p=NHS NATIONAL INT;dda:RFC-822=ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK; Subject: Reply: Re: Determining Staffing Levels Not directly relevent to the question here, but I am intrigued by the mention of a 'confidentiality clause' by one of the respondents, and the Disclaimer at the end by Lewisham Hospital claiming files transmitted by email are confidential. The fact in law is that no one is bound by confidentiality unless they have agreed to it IN ADVANCE. If you are sent an unsolicited communication marked 'confidential' there is no binding on you to maintain that presumed confidentiality. If you have signed a confidentiality agreement as part of a project, then that is binding. But for a hospital trust to assume emails are confidential is doubly naive: email service providers point out that emails are far from secure, being akin to sending a postcard in the mail - it can be easily read by someone who is determined. Of course, professional hospital employees sign a contract agreeing to maintain confidentiality about patients. This is an important agreement. But universities and hospitals are not encouraged to claim 'confidentiality' on everything they produce, particularly as this runs counter to government policy changes on 'whistle-blowing', as in the past false claims of confidentiality have been used to try to silence critical empoyees. Sorry for the diversion: back to the real world. -John Duley ------------------------------- On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:10:54 +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Alternatively, it suggests that the model was based on > sites with lots of medics / biochemists and did not > consider sites with fewer top-end staff - many workload > models tend to have this deficiency because it is only in > places with lots of staff where there is lots of 'free > time' which allows people to have the opportunity to > develop such models :-) > > TIM > > ************************************************************************** > Prof. Tim Reynolds, > Clinical chemistry Dept., > Queen's Hospital, > Belvedere Rd., > Burton-on-Trent. > tel: +44 (0) 1283 511511 ext 4035 > fax: +44 (0) 1283 593064 > email: [log in to unmask] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: c=GB;a=NHS;p=NHS NATIONAL > INT;dda:RFC-822=ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK; > Sent: 12 January 2001 08:55 > To: c=GB;a=NHS;p=NHS NATIONAL > INT;dda:RFC-822=ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN(a)JISCMAIL.AC.UK; > Subject: Re: Determining Staffing Levels > > > I am not aware of any sound information that can be used > for MLSOs or MLAs etc. One source is the Clinical > Benchmarking Company reports. http://www.thecbcsite.com or > email [log in to unmask] Those of us who participate have > just received our reports for the data we sumitted for > 1999/2000. Perhaps you have a copy or know someone who > does? There is a confidentiality clause in the report so > that probably stops me from releasing data from the report > through this medium. A word of caution. I have compared our > staffing for Medics/Clinical Biochemists, 3.5 wte, with the > ACB/RCPath model and we are spot. On the data from the 80 > or so uk labs we are approx 2 x overstaffed for this group > suggesting that most labs have not been successful at using > this model in budget setting. > > Paul Eldridge > University Hospital Lewisham > London SE13 6LH > >>> Tim Hull <[log in to unmask]> 01/09 10:04 am >>> > Dear All, > > Can any one point me at some current information which > deals with staffing levels for a given workload. I am > especially interested the ratio of chiefs to seniors and > BMS's etc. > > Thanks in Advance > > Tim > > _______________ > > Tim Hull, > Clinical Chemistry, > Armed Forces Hospital, > Riyadh. > > > > [log in to unmask] > > ********************************************************************** > DISCLAIMER: > > Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the > individual and not necessarily the Trust. This email and > any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. Any unauthorised disclosure of the > information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the > sender or [log in to unmask] Please then delete this > email. > > University Hospital Lewisham > Tel: 020 8333 3000 > Web: www.uhl.ac.uk > **********************************************************************