If you choose to customise the site it will help you to find the most relevant content for your needs. You will still be able to access all content on the site.
Log in is temporarily unavailable whilst we carry out essential maintenance. Service will be restored as soon as possible. We are sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Login to comment
An ST1 doctor was treating a female patient who had been admitted to ITU with a serious head injury. The police arrived on ITU and claimed that the patient, a gang member, had been involved in a violent incident and had seriously assaulted another female.
The police asked for the patient's name and address as well as information about her current condition. When the ST1 hesitated, they told her that she had a statutory duty to disclose these details under s29(3) of the Data Protection Act, which allows information to be disclosed for the 'prevention or detection of a crime'. Due to her injuries, the patient was unable to consent to disclosure. The doctor still felt uncomfortable about providing this information and called the MDU for advice.
... confidentiality is central to the trust between doctors and patients...
The doctor asked the MDU adviser whether she was required, or even allowed, to disclose this information to the police. The adviser referred her to the GMC guidance on confidentiality and explained that confidentiality is central to the trust between doctors and patients and should normally be respected. The adviser emphasised that the doctor's first priority was to discuss the request for disclosure with the treating consultant with overall responsibility for the patient. The adviser also suggested that the trust Caldicott Guardian should be made aware of this situation and be involved in the decision-making process.
In general, the adviser explained, no personal information should be disclosed to a third party such as a solicitor, police officer or officer of a court without the patient's express consent, unless it is required by law or can be justified in the public interest.
The adviser stated that there were other issues to consider in this case.
The member was advised of the importance of documenting in the notes all discussions and decisions regarding this disclosure and to inform the patient of their decision, if it was safe to do so.
The doctor later contacted the MDU again and said that the consultant had decided to disclose the information to the police in the public interest. They had documented that, although the patient was currently not a risk to others, she could be when discharged and they could not rule out that she might abscond.
This page was correct at publication on . Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.
Be the first to comment