Do we know that the
individual did not want their details published? If so then I agree with the
comments, but I would suspect that if the patient contact Private Eye, then they
have probably been asked for permission anyway? Just a
thought.
I do agree that if the
information need not be published then it shouldn’t, but they are journalists
after all….
Simon.
From: This list
is for those interested in Data Protection issues
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nick Landau
Sent: 11 January 2007 13:12
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: [data-protection] Private Eye
releasing possible unique patient information
In the current Private Eye, MD (the medical column) was
reporting on the problems as he saw it of patients using the NHS Choose and
Book. He provides the example of a particular patient and gives
the patient's name (who contacted Private Eye), the booking reference
number and password.
"How does Choose and Book
work?
If your GP decides that you need to see a specialist,
he/she will print out an ‘Appointment Request’ form, which includes your Unique
Booking Reference Number and lists the hospitals or local services available to
you.
You will be able to choose from this list and book an
appointment by calling your chosen hospital or local service. You can call
straight away after seeing your GP or at anytime up to two weeks later, if you
want to think more about your choice or preferred appointment date and
time.
Your password and reference
number
A password will be printed out on a separate sheet of
paper and given to you with your Appointment Request. This will be used to make
sure your information is kept secure on the computer system. When you call your
chosen hospital they will identify you by your password and the reference number
on your Appointment Request form."
Well, the problem could clearly have been described
without giving away this patient personal
information.
MD is a GP and therefore should have known this. It
seems that he is more concerned with making political points than respecting the
person's confidentiality. Obviously the patient supplied him with the
information, but he/the paper should have acted in the informant's interests by
not publishing it.
Nice one, Private Eye! You can imagine what they would
say about another paper that did this - I think it would be in "Streets of
Shame".
Nick Landau
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are available to the world wide web community at large at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
Selected commands (the command has been filled in below in the body of the email if you are receiving emails in HTML format):
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm and are sent in the body of an otherwise blank email to [log in to unmask]
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner [log in to unmask]
(Please send all commands to [log in to unmask] not the list or the moderators, and all requests for technical help to [log in to unmask], the general office helpline)
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are available to the world wide web community at large at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
Selected commands (the command has been filled in below in the body of the email if you are receiving emails in HTML format):
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm and are sent in the body of an otherwise blank email to [log in to unmask]
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner [log in to unmask]
(Please send all commands to [log in to unmask] not the list or the moderators, and all requests for technical help to [log in to unmask], the general office helpline)