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I do agree that if the information need not be published then it shouldn’t, but they are journalists after all….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.

According to http://www.gloshealthservices.org.uk/chooseandbook/cab/about.htm

"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