Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors

[turboandy]

Hi all,

 

I had to reregister as turboandy as i couldn't post as vturbo a second time.

 

In response to your question nolegion, yes i do tell people im recording them. i am now unable to get a doctor.

 

As i cant post a link yet goto google and search for.....gps warned on patients recording consultations and posting on internet

 

Andy

[nolegion]

Hi, Turboandy. If you are being denied access to healthcare solely because you insist on audio-recording how doctors behave towards you, it remains my view that those so denying are acting illegally.

 

Here are the ‘GP online’ (formerly healthcare republic) articles you are currently unable to link in this thread:-

 

http://editorsblog.gponline.com/2010/05/11/should-patients-post-consultations-on-youtube-facebook-and-twitter/

 

http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1002363/GPs-warned-patients-recording-consultations-posting-internet/

 

I think the above journalism represented a sensible and significant contribution to the debate last year.

 

Best wishes.

[nolegion]

Dollytots. My sympathies to your friend and his wife. It most certainly is not correct that complainants should be fobbed off, or stonewalled, as you indicate but to the misery and fury of all too many , it happens, alas, every day.

 

The NHS complaints system – or lack of it – is a running sore in this land, I believe.

 

You may find opinion divided in this forum (which is good for debate, if nothing else) about how to progress. In a nutshell there are those who say ‘go to PALS’ which has been otherwise described by people who share at least some of my views as ‘lipstick on a pig’ or a ‘chocolate teapot’.

 

I say don’t mistake airy words for action or incomprehension for an answer; never give up and take the complaint onwards and upwards to the best of your ability; and, one way or another, record and file what happens every step of the way. Assistance, may well be required, and as slow, flabby and dilute as they all too often are, ICAS is at least a start. I trust your friend has already been given contact details for them. If not , he should require them from the trust concerned.

 

With best wishes.

Edited November 22, 2011 by nolegion

[Dollytots]

Thankyouxx Nolegion, I will pass this on to my friends

[turboandy]

Thanks for the links nolegion,

 

I have emailed somerset PCT with those links and they are now listening to my complaint. I have just recived a letter from them regarding these issues. I don't know how to upload or even if a jpg can be uploaded for all to see. Perhaps someone can advise.

 

Andy

[nolegion]

TurboA. Although I claim that as a ‘silver surfer’ I am not quite as inept as some, my technical e-knowledge is limited. I don’t think you can post .jpg here – so you would need to upload and link, subject to site rules.

 

Some of the links I have posted in this now very long thread are from documents I have uploaded to ‘google.docs’ (when it is having a good hair day). I hope this may be of some use. If any viewers have better ideas, I hope they will ‘wade in.’

 

I confess I would be very interested to see how the PCT concerned is behaving in your case.

 

If you have got the PCT at least ostensibly to engage in dialogue I might suggest you also send them a copy of the GMC response to a FoI request, linked earlier this year, which confirmed that a doctor should usually consent to being recorded:-

 

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1etSkG73JvjZDI1ZGZhNGMtMmZmMi00MjVlLThhZGMtYTY1ZTY1YjMzOTIy&authkey=CPGozHg

[Tintoret]

I decided I would not complain to the hospital at all and make my complaint about the doctor to the GMC as I have proof of his dishonesty on two counts. I don't have dreams of his being struck off or anything, but just flagging it up, with evidence, SHOULD be enough to deter him from trying to harm other patients in the future, whatever the GMC decide ultimately to do with the complaint. I will of course pursue my rights under the DPA regarding the hospital record. And I am pursuing a freedom of information request to find out how many patients have been wrongly told that they need consent to record consultations. I am really just very interested in this and think it would make a great subject for a tv show or a journalistic piece. I am pursuing it quite separately from my attempts to discourage this dishonest doctor from abusing his position in future and causing such fear and upset in patients - especially in those who are perhaps more vulnerable and frightened and ignorant of their rights under the DPA.

 

The most frustrating thing so far is that a junior manager at the hospital - who intruded uninvited into a clinical post-surgical appointment to tell me it didn't matter if the recording showed I was polite, if a doctor feels intimidated then it is intimidation regardless of how pleasant things are on the tape, - this genius keeps writing letters to me which refer to "your intimidating behaviour" as if it is fact. I find that very distressing. I have responded to that in exactly the same way I responded to the doctor's fabrication - refuting it and demanding that it be retracted. But I believe he is simply being vexatious and trying to wear me down with a fear about this being written as fact and held for eternity on a record about me.

 

I'm thinking of trying to engage him in a discussion of whether his "the evidence is in the accusation" reasoning is more Orwellian or Kafkaesque. But I see little point. He didn't strike me as the kind of person who reads books. I was also thinking of writing to him and his employers to give him some feedback on his performance, to say that his behaviour was a bit "rapey" when we met. I recorded that meeting too, and although his "rapey-ness" doesn't come over at all on the recording, I still felt it. His air of sexual menace was perceived by me and so he must have displayed it.

 

But again, maybe not. He doesn't seem the kind of person who gets irony.

[nolegion]

I fear you are right that the GMC will be of little assistance, Tintoret, but they will at least give the doctor a ‘nasty moment’ when they write to him, as they will without telling you, informing him that he has been complained about. And if you have very clear evidence of a false\malicious medical record entry in a well-presented complaint (complete with recording and full transcript from day one) which also confirms that the Trust concerned does not propose to take any action, you just never know…

 

‘In other news’, I was very glad to learn this evening that 10 people from Winterbourne View are indeed to be prosecuted:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15924774

 

The history of covert recording producing results that numerous previous, bitter, complaints could not, is repeated, worthy and undeniable.

[Tintoret]

I think it will be interesting when the doctor has to explain the first lie, when the recording and transcript have me saying quite clearly and politely "Just to be absolutely clear, I am not at all bothered about the fact that you were delayed. Not one bit. I'm just giving you a bit of feedback and suggesting that it would be good to let patients know when there is a significant delay, so they can ring people and let them know they'll be late." To which the doctor replied something like: "Yes. Of course. I apologise." We go on to have a perfectly civil conversation about my operation. Later he writes to my GP that I was so furious at being delayed that I behaved in an intimidating way towards him.

 

He has retracted the accusation of my being furious about being delayed but he will still have to explain why he wrote that. It's still a false statement, whether or not he retracts it. He claims that he didn't understand that I was making a suggestion but it's hard to make that in any way believable in the face of the transcript. Likewise with the "intimidating behaviour". If you could hear the tape. I am light-hearted, upbeat, I even make a joke about my age at one point. He made the whole thing up after I left the room. I think he knows he would be in very serious trouble if he admitted the second lie too. I'm pretty sure in cases of overt dishonesty the GMC are pretty much obliged to suspend or recommend for removal from the register. It's a big thing to be dishonest in this way. He'd probably be on much safer ground if he'd killed me.

 

We shall see.

[Tintoret]

Excellent news about the care-home thugs being prosecuted. There is no doubt that covert recording is the only way that these ghastly people would have been brought to justice. No wonder institutions which are threaded with an institutionalised lack of respect for the patients are the ones who are seeking to stop covert recordings happening.

 

The letter I got telling me I should not have recorded without consent was unequivocal. It gave the impression that I did not have the right to record covertly. When I challenged this (in one easy sentence) I received a reply telling me it was "hospital policy" which they requested that patients "respect".

 

First, there was no "request" - just a completely false prohibition. Second, hospitals can't have a "policy" of removing legal rights any more than burglars or hitmen can. Third, what could be less respectful than assuming a false authority to strip patients of these rights whenever they pass through the hospital doors?

 

Do they believe that they operate like a foreign embassy and that their "policy" can simply replace the law? It occurs to me that in concocting a false authority over patients to prohibit covert recording they are claiming powers for themselves which are entirely imaginary. When individual human beings behave in this way we might reasonably conclude that they need to be brought to account, enlightened or perhaps undergo some kind of psychiatric evaluation.

[nolegion]

I can confirm that the (psychotic) delusion to which Tintoret refers is widespread and severe. It can extend not only to falsely imagining the content and legal effect of any such purported policy, but to mistakenly imagining the very existence of the policy in the first place.

 

I trust the copy text below from an email exchange between a friend of mine and an NHS Trust earlier this year, suitably illustrates:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Jim Otram [mailto[email protected]]

Sent: 17 May 2011 23:35

To: FAO {name}

Subject: FOI audio-recording consultations with NHS doctors

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Freedom of Information Act

 

As regards any policy operated or applied by or on behalf ofSOUTH TYNESIDE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST in relation to patients who wish to audio-record their consultations with doctors the Trust directly or indirectly engages:-

 

Please supply by email:

 

1. A copy of any such policy

 

2. Copies of any notes, minutes, memoranda or other records in relation the formulation and authorisation of any such policy

 

3. Copies of any notices, leaflets or similar information for patients or staff which have any bearing on such a policy

 

4. A copy of any legal advice received or noted by or onbehalf of the trust in connection with any such policy or putative policy ofsuch nature.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within the statutory period for compliance.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Mr J. Otram

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Mr. Otram

 

Thank you for your request for information under FOI. ....

 

Please note that we do not have a policy in relation to patients who wish to audio-record their consultations with doctors.

 

I hope that this is helpful.

 

Kind regards.

 

{name}

 

Private Office Manager

[south Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jim says he has many such examples, and that it is only sensible and humane to put NHS staff suffering from delusional patient-hostile behaviour out of their misery, for the benefit of all concerned.

[nolegion]

Just in case it should otherwise seem unfair or prejudicial, I thought I would add to my previous post today, some of the names of other NHSFoundation Trusts, who, in response to FoI requests this year, have confirmed that they do not have any policy with regard to patients who wish to record their consultations with the doctors the Trusts employ:-

 

Guy’s and St Thomas’

Heart of England

Liverpool Women’s

Salisbury.

University Hospitals, Bristol.

 

The principal point, in my view, is that it is or would be both fatuous (and online-risible) for any Trust to devise an unenforceable ‘policy, as well as demonstrably mendacious for them to tell a complainant there is a policy when none exists. FoI is good at nailing this, it seems.

 

Of course, they could always devise policies which expressly welcome the audio-recording of consultations by patients with a view to assisting patient confidence and holding clinicians to account.

[turboandy]

For those who were following my persistance in getting a doctor to allow me to record my consultation with them, i have some news.

I have recieved a letter stating that the PCT will now allow me to record but only audio, no video. Can they do this? I have a few of their letters scanned in and uploaded on google docs, but i can't post links yet?

 

Andy

[nolegion]

TurboA. Congratulations. Please may I say that I, for one, am very glad to learn that your persistence has got the PCT actually to be of some use. I think others in similar shoes will truly take heart from that.

 

Obviously, I do not know all the circumstances of your case, but, all other things being equal, my inclination would be to accept the right to audio-record ‘as is’ at least for the time being, and congratulate yourself on your success.

 

Strictly speaking, there is good argument to say that you should be able to video as well; after all, doctors have asked patients toconsent to video recording of consultations for their own purposes for many years. But in terms of a legal right openly to record, I think it’s probably easier at the moment to insist on just audio recording, if you can live with that.

 

I don’t know what the current site rules are on the number of posts you need to have here before you can link. With news like yours,though, I would be keen to follow any developments.

[honeybee13]

Hello there. I think it's 20 posts for a link.

 

My best, HB

[turboandy]

Hi all,

 

I have had to turn down my PCT's offer to an audio recorded session as this doesn't gaurd against any possible accusations made against me. only video will protect my interests.

 

as for the links i have all my correspondence on google docs if anyone wants to see it. as i cant post a direct link try putting the http// infront of what follows to see an example of what i'm talking about.

 

docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Y8GOjdWmPMjg1YWVlMjMtODY4ZS00ZDE1LWI1NmUtYjJjZjA1N2ZkZDhk&hl=en_GB

 

andy

[turboandy]

sorry that link is wrong.

 

try this docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPMjg1YWVlMjMtODY4ZS00ZDE1LWI1NmUtYjJjZjA1N2ZkZDhk&hl=en_US

 

with the http prefix

[turboandy]

Over the next few days i will be uplaoding more letters i have recieved from my PCT, showing how they tried to criminalise me by setting me up with fake information. They have repeatedly tried in vain to get me arrested because i'm bringing legal action against them for covering up a medial condiction for over 15 years. This is how i got a criminal record for section 4 in 2010.

 

My adivce when making a complaint against any NHS organisation is to cover yourself and the facts by recording all phone calls and consultations. Your freedom may depend on just how good your evidence is one day as i have found out to my cost.

 

Hopefully, by the time i have uploaded the relavent letters, anyone interested will clearly see that the NHS is fully willing to act above the law when trying to protect itself.

 

Andy

[nolegion]

Andy, I have pasted your link(s) into my browser -but no joy. Any other viewer done better?

 

Are you quite sure you have set the file sharing permission for the document(s) in google.docs to 'anyone with the link'?

[turboandy]

Hi nolegion, i have set the permission for anyone with a link to view.

 

Here are 2 parts of a letter sent to me in October. part1 first, then part2

 

docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPYzJjNGNiYTktOTk2Mi00NTU2LWIyNDItODg5Y2YzNGY1OWQ1&hl=en_US

 

docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPMDdkNDdlNjgtYTI5YS00YzVhLTk1NjQtOGQ0YTZmN2VmYTBj&hl=en_US

 

Then another in November.

 

docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPMDY3NmMwNTItZDFiMi00Y2MwLTgxMzYtMjIyZjYyMWYwMDdj&hl=en_US

 

Then the followup to that.

 

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPZGRjYmM2MGQtNjEyYS00NjVlLWE0YTAtMzVlNzkzMzBlNDZi&hl=en_US

 

And finaly the last one from 1st December.

 

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPNzVhZmY3ZGUtOTdhNi00NjAwLWJjOTItNThlMTA5Njg5MDU2&hl=en_US

 

Hopefully you will understand what i have had to go through, however, still no full video recording yet.

 

Andy

[nolegion]

Andy. I read all those googledocs with great interest. I fully understand and respect the fact that you have not (yet) achieved everything you require i.e. the right to video- not just audio- record, but I still think you have done very well to make the PCT get off its high horse and back down on the audio-recording issue.

 

For the ease of reference of any other viewers (since Andy cannot ‘link’ here yet), last month (7th November) the PCT (Somerset) was still resisting the idea of one of their GPs being recorded at all, but Andy was making them ‘think again’ again with reference to the articles in GP Online of May last year and a couple of the observations of one of the commentators on that useful journalism in particular, namely:-

 

“1. A patient's wish to record medical consultations need not be in any way 'clinician specific' . He\she may wish to keep records of all consultations with whatever doctor - and why not?

 

2. A doctor who is hostile to being recorded presents himself\herself as untrustworthy.

 

I think that a physician trying to argue, 'you can't do this because it means you don't trust me and therefore you should change doctors', is just a wish to'ban' in very thin disguise.

 

And it won't work. Unless it is clear that a patient will be, amicably, permitted to record, patients will record anyway. You just won't know about it.”

 

(See:

 

http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1002363/GPs-warned-patients-recording-consultations-posting-internet/

 

and Andy’s 071111googledoc:

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPZGRjYmM2MGQtNjEyYS00NjVlLWE0YTAtMzVlNzkzMzBlNDZi&hl=en_US )

 

This month (1st December) the PCT wrote again (‘clarifying’ i.e. backing down) as regards audio-recording, as Andy’s further googledoc letter reveals:-

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPNzVhZmY3ZGUtOTdhNi00NjAwLWJjOTItNThlMTA5Njg5MDU2&hl=en_US

 

What is being said in that last letter, in connection with video recording and the BMA, is, I think, ‘groundbreaking news’. I have checked with a former colleague or two and no one has seen this position formally taken ‘in public’ before. Corrections welcome.

[turboandy]

Cheers nolegion for commenting,

This issue of recording isn't actually my biggest problem. The only reason I need to record anything in the first place is because of the fact the NHS are trying desperately to silence me from legal proceedings against them. They have previously managed to get a criminal conviction on me for daring to complain to PALS about how my doctors were covering up blood test results.

It was in fact PALS themselves that claimed I had threatened them by use of force to the police back in 2009. This was done without any evidence what so ever, only hearsay, which gave them the ability to build a case file that led to their latest attempt to get rid of me, namely the injunction.

The contents with the so called evidence to back up this ridiculous claim is too big for google docs, so I will upload just the claim and the injunction details for you to view.

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPNGQwNTYwN2ItODYzNi00OGI3LWFhZmMtMWEyYjExYWFlYTUw&hl=en_US

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_Y8GOjd-WmPZWE3OTY0YzktOGJmMS00YWZiLTk1ODgtZWRjNzY5MzlmOGQ4&hl=en_US

as you can see from these 2 docs, i have my work cut out. without legal aid it seems that i am never going to get justice as far as my health is concerned as there are quite a few doctors involved now in my blood tests cover up.

[Sali]

Reading turboandy's comments make my veins run with ice. There is very much a circle the wagons mentality amongst our medical profession. Agonising for the victim.

 

Has there ever been a legal case brought against the NHS where audio recording - covert or otherwise - was permitted as evidence?

 

If the audio were covert could it be suggested that the patient was driving the conversation in their favour?

 

If the audio was open, could it negatively impact the consultation for the patient?

 

I was also thinking of tampering. Photoshop (other photo editing tools are available) no longer means that 'a picture never lies.' Audio editing is also easily accessible. A troller posted an audio recording of a footballer - John Terry I think - making racist comments, which I understand was made up of various soundbites linked together to make him sound like a bigot. I never heard this, but I wonder if there were people taken in.

 

If someone denies that it is them on the audio tape, how much effort would a prosecutor make to prove it? How reliable is voice analysis? As reliable as DNA?

 

Even video recording seems to be controvertible.

 

I was thinking of the policeman who won an appeal against his conviction which showed him throwing a woman into a police cell. The appeal judge (and I often think our judges are from the moon) said that the woman's injuries were caused by her letting go of the door frame. In my opinion that policeman, whatever this lady's alleged crime and however bad a day he was having, had a duty of care towards her. He may well get his job back. What a disgrace.

 

Also Ian Tomlinson who died during the G20 demo in London. The video footage of the policeman pushing Mr Tomlinson to the ground was initially dismissed by the police and then there was the suggestion that they had run out of time to prosecute the officer. Who knew that justice had a sell by date?

 

Much pain is added to the victim and/or their family when they have to fight for justice despite mountains of proof. So easily do individuals, companies, organisations, politicians, public bodies and the like put aside their humanity, honour and integrity to serve and protect themselves.

[nolegion]

1. I don’t know whether anyone else has had a chance to look at the latest ‘legals’ docs turboandy has referred to in has last post, but, with regard to the PCT, it boils down to a requirement only to communicate through ‘PALS’. Fate worse than death. I have myself tangled with North Somerset PCT’s ‘PALS’. Site rules and some general requirements of decency prevent my giving full justice here to the depth and strength of my aversion to what I encountered.

 

Many commiserations, Andy. The only good part about the Order is that it expires in 6 months time. I am dismayed to think that you lack access to the legal advice you so clearly need on an ongoing basis – and as you no doubt know, the currently proposed legislation will restrict legal aid even further. Beggars belief.

 

2. Sali. I’m glad to say it is most definitely the case that in appropriate circumstances covertly-recorded evidence can be declared admissible in legal proceedingsagainst NHS doctors. I understand from some active lawyers (who I happen to trust (!), though they quite properly cannot give me confidential details) that cases are now being settled out of court on the strength of such recordings – so such (medical) matters haven’t yet got to be part of a reported legal case after trial and judgment, so far as Iam currently aware. It’s only a question of time though, in my view…

 

It’s absolutely true that recorded evidence can be challenged on a number of grounds. However, the production of it, before one gets to court let alone in it, can be ‘dynamite’ (as described by the lawyer whose text ‘MyTurn’ brought to this thread a while back).

 

As regards complaints\ disciplinary proceedings - as opposed to civil suits proper - even though the sanctions ultimately applied by the GMC were pitifully slight, there is, I hope you may agree, at least some satisfaction to be derived from the story of the allegedly ‘entrapped’ doctors underlying these two links, which touch on some of the considerations your last post raises:-

 

http://www.chre.org.uk/_img/pics/library/060213_Saluja.pdf

 

http://www.chre.org.uk/_img/pics/library/060419_Anand,_Jamal_and_Singh.pdf

 

Basically, the GMC tried not to proceed with disciplinary proceedings against some doctors because the crucial evidence had been recorded covertly. The High Court told the GMC to grow up and get on with it. Some of the doctors concerned were eventually suspended.

[My Turn]

as you can see from these 2 docs, i have my work cut out. without legal aid it seems that i am never going to get justice as far as my health is concerned as there are quite a few doctors involved now in my blood tests cover up.

 

Good luck, TurboAndy. You really must have upset the PCT for them to want you away from their premises!

 

You referred to a cover up to do with your blood tests and this seems to be the heart of the matter. Is there any value in outlining for us here what happened with your blood tests?

 

My Turn