 |
 |
This old fart solicitor we had used to ask for any new information since (date) and he obviously was stockpiling medical records so he would have the complete set until I changed it all. I also really really pissed him off by refusing to give him any information until he had provided me with evidence that he was, indeed, a real solicitor,. and therefore bound to act in the patients best interests, as he was dealing with at risk individuals who were easily taken advantage of. As I was not only a PM, but also a Nurse, It was my duty to be patients advocate and ensure that no action or omission on the part of ourselves would result in any harm to the patient, and that included checking up on people who were asking for access to confidential and private medical records. I remember having concerns about giving info out to these no win no fee gits who have no professional qualifications, neither are they bound by any regulatory body, so they could do what the heck they wanted with the records, and with blind consent from the patient, they have little or no legal comeback. As a side issue, one of my American friends, will not provide letters to solicitors from 3rd parties, they have to chase them, So no letters from consultants etc, She just notes that the patient had been referred and seen by Dr.. and the pills were now changed to ... The lawyers she has, have to work harder and pay consultants for access to THEIR medical records, which must drive them nuts if a patient has multiple problems and is under several consultants, physios, OTs, .....and it goes on,,,,,,,and on......and on..... I figured the rules must be different in different states On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:09 AM, John Clegg <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > When I was a PM I introduced a policy of checking that the patient was > fully informed. They weren't in quite a few cases. > > The solicitors hated it - presumably they wanted the information whether > legitimately or not. I found that worrying! > > > On 22 March 2011 15:09, Geoff Schrecker <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> On 22 March 2011 15:07, Trefor Roscoe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> > Errr... yes she had, the consent forms always say all of my medical >> records. Just because her lawyers had not told her the implications of this. >> >> >> But the consent is only valid if informed, presumably the duty of the >> solicitor who got her to sign. Hence why we now have to sign the minor >> surgery form to confirm that we have full explained the procedure. >> Perhaps if the solicitor had to sign that they have explained the full >> implications of the release of the full record ..............? >> >> Cheers Geoff >> >> -- >> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments unless by prior >> arrangement. >> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html >> > >