Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors

[nolegion]

Thank you, Clear33. Your comments are appreciated and you prompt me to find a moment to add a couple of items in relation to recent contributions from Andy and Sali.

 

As regards 'gagging' clauses, the regular e-magazine for GPs has been looking at the arrangements for 'Care Commissioning Groups' (supposedly now replacing Primary CareTrusts); and the terms of at least some of their constitutions contain, guess what: gagging clauses. Or at least so says "Pulse Today":

 

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/commissioning/commissioning-topics/ccgs/gp-duty-of-candour-undermined-by-inappropriate-gagging-clauses-in-ccg-constitutions/20002524.article

 

You couldn't make it up, even if the new arrangements did come into force on April 1, but I haven't yet had time to track down the actual 'legal text' of any such provision.

 

The enormously debated, complex, top-down and hideously expensive NHS 'rearrangements' are beginning to look just like the opaque, self-serving, patient-hostile systems which preceded them, before they are even a few days old.

 

On another note, Jacqui Thompson, the spirited lady from Carmarthenshire Sali mentioned a little while back, lost her libel case, sadly. Again, I haven't yet had a moment seek and read a copy of the full judgment (if indeed it has been fully 'legally' reported) - but if anyone has a handy link, I would be grateful for it.

[nolegion]

"There are, however, some general-practitioner teachers who do not ask for consent and who do not even tell the patient that the consultation is being recorded. These doctors, who include some of the leading authorities in the country, argue thatthe record of such a consultation is no more the patient' sproperty than is the medical record."

 

From: Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1975, 25, 705-707 706EDITORIALS

(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2157837/pdf/jroyalcgprac00298-0006.pdf)

 

I posted this link to the extraordinary ignorance and arrogance of some members of the medical profession back in 2010. Note that the edition of medical journal concerned was published in 1975.

 

So what era do you think the lulu of a GP who spoke the words below springs from (?):-

 

"Dr Lockley told panelists discussing implementation of the strategy that records should belongto the GP, for the GP’s own information and that handing open access to patients could prevent doctors recording uncertainties.

 

‘When patients come to see me for the first time I probably know what’s going on in about 50% of cases. It’smy record about the patient, not the patient’s record. It’s my notes about what is going on."

 

Well, you could be forgiven for guessing wrong. This self-important little dinosaur is strutting around in 2013 – according to GP Online whose publication is received free by every GP practice in the country.

 

See:-

http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1177955/gps-fear-legal-threat-rising-workload-records-go-online/

 

Staggering.

Edited April 11, 2013 by nolegion

[Sali]

Staggering indeed! Especially when you consider the recent BBC report of the lady handcuffed and removed by the police from a doctor's surgery after she refused to leave the practice until her medical records, that she had previously been promised and paid for, were provided. According to her the records are highly inaccurate, listing conditions and habits (smoking) that she has never had.

 

You might say, so what? But it could be that she received the wrong treatment or medication as a result of this sloppy record keeping.

 

I admire her spirit.

 

I was sorry to hear that Jacqui Thompson lost her case. I too would like to read the court transcript. Did she have counsel I wonder? I have long thought that justice and the law are mutually exclusive and like every good Briton, I have a healthy dislike and fear of local councillors, their actions and their motives.

 

As for the gagging clauses, like the article suggests, these would surely be cancelled out by a legal duty of candour. However, any policy which makes an employee hesitate about speaking out about their concerns is worrying for the patients. Did the medical profession learn nothing from Mid-Staffs?

[turboandy]

Same here, my records show that i had jobs that i didn't as well as conditions i don't or never have had.

 

What is great now that i have full disclosure to my medical records, is that i found a letter my old doctor had received from the PCT asking him to remove me. He wrote back 'i don't have any grounds to remove this patient' but i will come up with an excuse.

[nolegion]

Andy. What you cite is, in my view, an absolutely classic example of gross unprofessionalism and deceit revealed by a doctor's own record. I've seen several such examples myself, but I'm not going to try to trump your report by rehearsing them just now.

 

No doubt doctors behave like this for several reasons, but what one them is surely and centrally the belief that somehow their behaviou rwill never come under scrutiny. Time they woke up, from GP surgeries to Staffordshire hospitals.

 

Should you have a moment sometime in the future to link copy relevant communication(s) on line ('sanitised' of names addresses to save host sites' angst?) I would be only too glad to read them here.

 

To my way of thinking, monitoring one's own healthcare both by recording and by obtaining copy records goes thoroughly hand in hand. Thank you for the illustration.

[honeybee13]

Hello Andy.

 

I can't believe the PCT told your doctor to remove you! I can't remember all the ins and outs of your saga, but how did they expect you to get medical care?

 

My best, HB

[nolegion]

It is shocking behaviour, isn't it, HB?

 

The first time I saw clear evidence in a patient's medical record of a PCT conspiring with a GP to treat a patient very badly,I couldn't believe my eyes, initially.

 

It wasn't just the connivance, wretched malice and inevitable detriment to the patient – it was the fact that the GP was so convinced of his righteousness that he actually recorded the dialogue concerned in the patient's notes. Some doctors really can become blinded by their self-perceived orificial helio-radiance.

 

That doctor, however, is no longer on the medical register,I am glad to say.

 

One can scarcely imagine this sort of situation is likely tobecome rarer by virtue of the current replacement of PCTs with (supposedly )GP-led 'Care Commissioning Groups.'

[honeybee13]

Hello nolegion, nice to talk to you again.

 

I'm nowhere near as well informed as you, but I'm very worried about a GP who thinks his patient is OK but is being browbeaten by the PCT to 'sack' the patient. It just doesn't sound right to me.

 

I really hope I haven't hijacked this thread, as site team I shouldn't be doin this! If we need a new thread on Andy's topic, it could be started.

 

HB

Edited April 15, 2013 by honeybee13
Spelling.

[Sali]

I am not surprised by your story TurboAndy. I have heard such things before and of the obstacles heaped in the way to prevent people correcting 'faulty' patient records.

 

To be removed as a patient just because you've displeased them by pointing out their mistakes is a disgrace - and only to find out by chance too.

 

A chap on the radio yesterday spoke about being labelled 'vexatious' because the local NHS had a policy that defined anyone as this who had the audacity to complain to their local MP about the hospital's service. When the patient challenged this, a new manager (they always say they are new to distance themselves from the original decision) seemingly accepted that this could be construed as unfair and modified the policy. Policies apparently differ from hospital to hospital, although there may be a national policy after the government's investigation into the complaints procedure has completed later this year. I hope they remove the complaints system away from the hospital altogether and have an external body assess, analyse and investigate issues. Then we may get the true picture of just how good or bad our hospitals are.

[speedfreek]

Here an interesting twist on things just got an up to date copy of my GP patient record.

 

Now I got a new GP in Jan who twigged that I was recording her as I was telling her about my recordings of certain events. Soon afterwards this GP wrote a letter some 2 months ago to the CMHT that states

 

'He also finds it very difficult to recall memories and therefore often tapes consultations with professionals.'

 

Whilst it's true I'm unsure passing of that in that way is a simple mistake, a warning to others or very very naughty.

 

Tell you what though the records at this place are accurate, informative and thorough! Makes my last practice ones look shameful and more like the Spot the Dog book for under 5s of how to lie whilst writing nothing at all.

[nolegion]

Looks like a 'tip off' to me, speedfreek. Still, provided no-one who reads the letter tries to make life difficult for you, no harm done, and I am glad that you seem happier with your healthcare in general.

 

I maintain that to audio-record consistently, and periodically to keep a copy set of all your own medical records up -to-date, is a really positive step - pro-activeabout healthcare - for every patient.

 

A different tip: ever since the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry well over a decade ago, it has been official NHS policy for patients to be able to have a copy of any letter one professional writes to another about them, at the time it is sent, and free of charge – IF they ask for one at the time. Funny old thing, though, even after all this time health professionals (or their notice-boards\practice leaflets etc) don't seem to remind patients of this entitlement very often.

 

I always ask for a copy of any communication whatsoever. Saves time and money, and, what shall we say, keeps 'em polite in the first place.

[speedfreek]

Looks like a 'tip off' to me

 

Cheers NL that was my 1st take on it.

 

Naughty GP Naughty!

 

Doesn't matter tbf as remember my Vexatious thread on page 3 here. It's still running. Still no treatment! I got reading and writing skills back last month and will write up quite an amazing story when this is over. Waiting on SARs but my audio recordings ha ha ha ha ha Deny that ya varlets!

 

This explains things http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f26/anxiety-can-interfere-with-cognitive-ability-127218/ I was confused at the start of March why football players were playing for the wrong team. When was the end of season and the transfer window! So how long have I been a bit short for?

 

Me IT Support Contractor, Manager and fully trained Project manager now with brain back and nothing to lose... it a bit Pulp Fiction where S.Jackson tells Tim Roth to say Honey Bunny be cool

 

Or http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-here-to-kick-ass-and-chew-bubblegum

 

It's all my fault anyway so BANZI!!!!!

[My Turn]

Hello all. This is a just a reminder to everyone to get a copy of your GP records while there is no problem and no pressing need to see your file.

 

As soon as there is a hint of a problem then you're likely to get get all sorts of excuses for endless delays. I once had to chase my GP for 9 months before I got a copy of my records!

 

If cost is a concern then just ask for an electronic copy of all your data because the charge for electronically held data is capped at £10. In my case, my new GP gave me a CD of all electronically held data free of charge ... but then again I guess he had no skeletons in the cupboard regarding what was in my notes because he just starting with me as a patient.

 

"My Turn"

[Clear33]

I would like to know:

 

How can I make certain the surgery has disclosed all data they have?

 

How do I complain about loss of medical records, mis diagnosis, error and unprofessional and unscientific comments?

 

Is it possible then after a G.P. consultation to say please email me your written records of this consultation? I want to keep on top of errors the moment they arise and its no good really just updating records once or twice a year.

 

For example I had been to get my blood pressure checked. I needed a month later a copy of the results for another Doctor.

 

On getting a copy , I couldnt believe they had managed to cock that up.

 

1) They had failed to note my pulse upon standing - which was important diagnostic feature.

 

2) it stated I was there with my Husband. Now, I dont have a husband and have never been married. I dont wear any rings on my fingers. I simply happened to be accompanied by a male friend in the consultation.

 

I know its neither here nor there medically but my medical records are littered with errors like this and it really annoys me.

 

Thanks,

 

Clear33

Edited April 21, 2013 by Clear33

[nolegion]

Good to hear from you again, My Turn.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, of course. In times of peace prepare for war – but there are many positive, additional benefits to maintaining your own copy set of medical records as well.

 

For instance, a friend of mine had to go into hospital a few years ago and was given a questionnaire about diseases had in the past,including hepatitis. She had had hepatitis as a child she declared, and suddenly there was much sucking of teeth about whether treatment could proceed as planned in case it had been 'the wrong sort of hepatitis'. A lengthy and delaying enquiry into ancient GP records was envisaged. Not a bit of it. She had done 'the full £50 job' on her GPs under the Data Protection Act a couple of years previously, so she rang her husband who found and brought in therelevant copy record (it had been the 'right' sort of hepatitis) and the problem dissolved like snow upon the desert's dusty face.

 

Clear33 – good to hear from you again too. The Data Protection Act 1998 gives you the right to be given copies of all or any parto f your medical records. It can be a frustrating and time-consuming business,and in most circumstances the records holders can charge (reasonable) fees notexceeding £50 in all.

 

What I have referred to as 'the full £50 job' above is often the surest route to overall success in the first instance and I wrote a somewhat world-weary (and certainly wordy!) account of how to do thatin another thread a while back which you can access at post #39 here:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?36564-Access-to-my-medical-records./page2

 

As regards keeping abreast of very recent additions to e.g.GP's notes and test results etc, I entirely take your point that it is better to keep on top of current (mis-) developments than try to sort them out later.

 

There are basically three tactics, in my view.

 

One is the '£10 route', which My Turn has just mentioned.Strictly speaking they can charge up £10 for any copy electronic record AND up to £10 to supply a copy of any paper record AND these 'ceilings' on charges only apply to records added within the 40 days preceding receipt of a written request for them. Furthermore, the practice has 40 days from receipt of both request and fee with which to comply.

 

However, in reality everything is now 'computerised' (inc.documentation 'scanned' shortly after receipt) and sending a letter asking for copies of all computerised\scanned entries added within the past 40 days (orf rom a given date), together with a cheque for £10 sometimes produces reasonable results in a considerably shorter time.

 

The second route is somewhat more recondite and is perhaps best recommended for those with more time at their disposal than cash. As aresult of a debate in the House of Lords in 2000 it is, ostensibly, current NHS policy to permit inspection in person of any medical record added within the previous 40 days free of charge, and within 21 days of receipt ofwritten request.

 

It must be said that this is policy, not enforceable law, and I have yet to meet a practice manager or hospital records clerk who understands it properly. However, I knew a patient who used to write requiring an inspection after every visit to a GP, specifically to inspect the entry made about the previous appointment. In the end the practice worked out it was much cheaper and easier to send a copy of the relevant computerised record to the patient than to devote the staff time to providing and 'supervising' the access. So they did that without charge. Each time. Result, but you can't rely on such common sense prevailing..

 

Third, as I mentioned a little earlier in this thread, try in any event and every time, to make anyone sending something to a GP send the same to you at the same time and vice versa. The last time a consultant told me he would write to my GP asking the GP to conduct certain blood tests, Iinsisted on being sent a copy of the letter at the same time. Just as well, because between the GP and the practice nurse they cocked it up. The practice nurse didn't take the number of samples the letter indicated.. I had the copy letter with me, and produced it to the practice nurse. Job done, no delay.

[nolegion]

Here's a view shamelessly filched lock, stock and whatsit from commentary appended to an article very recently published in specialist U.S.magazine: " CancerWorld". Predominantly sensible stuff from someone who certainly seems to know what he is talking about.

 

 

Ken Campbell says:

 

23 April 2013 11:07:55

 

 

I am clinical information offi[c]er for a UK cancer charity. I often recommend to patients that they ask permission to record their consultation. I would never advocate "clandestine" recording. There are several reasons for my suggestion.

 

It is well established that even patients with very high health literacy have poor recall of non-trivial information - unfortunately, the recall tends to be biased, with some patients remembering only "good" elements and others remembering only "bad" elements. The ability to replay the consultation allows time to absorb information fully. Secondly, when a friend or family member is present at a consultation they and the patient often have a discordant recollection; access to a record of the meeting can facili[t]tate reaching a common understanding. Finally, even when news is good, it can be very stressful to repeat details to various family members and close friends - this is obviously even more the case when news is bad. If the patient has a recording of the c[o]nsultation, they can invite family/friends to listen to this in private, so eliminating the stress of repeatedly describing the consul[t]ation.

 

I am a non-clinician and so do not have to deal with such issues but I entirely understand the medico[-]legal concern expressed by Frank. I would point out that many disputes arise because there is a different recall between patient and physician about what was said at a consultation. If a physician is following good practice in communication, availability of a recording is more likely to protect that doctor from a complaint than to give rise to one. My own experience is that after giving this advice to many patients over 20 years, I have yet to experience a patient coming back to report that this caused trouble with their consultant. I understand that, in the UK, a number of training centres now recommend that recording of consultations should be routinely offered to patients.

 

I hope these comments from a disinterested party are helpful. Ken

,

(For a link, click the date, top right. Article entitled, 'Is there an App for that?')

...............................................

 

I would be more way than Ken though about not experiencing 'trouble with consultants' (or their managers). Others have had experiences to the contrary.

[turboandy]

After the i have spent 6 years training as a Biomedical scientist to work in the Imunogentics labs in North Bristol NHS trust, i have witnessed all sorts of coverup of wrong information in hospitals.

 

I have also been refused info on what treatments/diagnosis my mother was being subjected to regarding her cancer to which she lost, mainly because i wasn't allowed to "interfere".

 

I have also lost my father due to negligence and the "liverpool care pathway bull**** policy" They told me that if he arrests they won't be resuscitating him. They wouldn't even give him the proper amino feed tubes so he effectively starved post op. I even witnessed his IV being left on the floor and had to complain.

 

And then there's my own issues with my health and falsified records etc that has lead to me obtaining a criminal record and an ankle tag for 4 months and a curfew., all for daring to make an official complaint about the complaints manager refusing to take my complaint. However, i have now obtained a hi def 1080p video recording of a PALS manger stating that my complaint that was trumped up to a verbal threat over the phone to kill a complaints manager was infact bogus and "everyone in the department knows it". I can now prove that the NHS committed perjury in court to silence my attempts to get justice.

 

So i say, "if they don't like covert recording", then tough ****! Don't lie, cheat and rob people of their future.

 

I can't wait until i publish my covert video recordings of many people in the NHS that i have dealt with over the past 3 years or so. This includes some doctors too. The camera never lies.

 

soap box now back in the cupboard. lol

[nolegion]

'The allegations against Levin came to light in 2010 after one of his patients came forward with secret videos he had recorded during court-ordered sessions with the psychiatrist.

 

The videos, played in court last fall,show Levin undoing the man's belt and jeans and appearing to fondle him.

 

The patient, identified only as R.B. in court, was on probation at the time the videos were taken and had been ordered to see Levin twice a month.

 

The man said he had told authorities about previous assaults and no one believed him, so he bought a spy camera and brought it to his appointments.

 

"It seemed hopeless,"R.B. said in one of three victim impact statements presented to the court on Wednesday.'

 

Emphasis mine. Story about Canadian psyschiatrist Aubrey Levin, from:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/31/aubrey-levin-sentencing-judge_n_2588126.html

[nolegion]

Here's a blog item from yesterday which I found interesting, written by one Tim Thornton, about whom I know nothing:-

 

"Wednesday, 15May 2013

 

Health Research withReal Impact conference

 

I've been at the Health Research with Real Impact conference today. With a wideranging programme across the field of health research, I wasn't sure how much,as a mere philosopher, I would be able to understand. But the unifying theme ofthe morning, although called 'knowledge management', was more specific eventhan that. Roughly, why is it that potential innovations backed by good qualityevidence are not easily adopted? Why are 45% of well researched innovations nottaken up?

 

Here are two specific examples, both from cancer care. My colleague KintaBeaver discussed resistance to the idea of using telephone follow-upconsultations in place of hospital based face to face encounters despite bothits popularity with patients and with its clinical effectiveness. Thomas Hack,from the University of Manitoba, discussed the problem of first consultationsfor those diagnosed with cancer. Typically, he reported, patients areanxious and as a result fail to take in or retain information put to them. Theanswer, which is hardly rocket science, is to record the consultation and givethe patient a copy at the end. But the interesting thing was thatdespite good quality Cochrane review evidence for its effectiveness in avariety of degrees there was little initial uptake for it

 

Different speakers gave different examples of specific approaches to addressingthe gap between good evidence and change of healthcare practices. For example,Janice Eng of British Columbia showed a website which ranked research papersrelevant to spinal cord injury but also made available unpublished research (whichinterestingly increased subsequent journal publication rather than diminishingit). But I was more interested in the reason for the inertia in the firstplace. Tom Hack reported that whilst all the clinicians he interviewed aboutrecording consultations shared a view of its probable efficacy (there beingmuch published evidence) they disagreed about the specifics of the perceivedobstacles. It seems oddly coincidental that all agreed that there would beobstacles but they disagreed about the particular reasons. What,I want to ask, is the real reason? Is it simply a universalconservatism? Is there anything more interesting behind this?

 

I was also struck by an ironic reversal. At the start of the morning, a coupleof speakers invoked the idea of 'mind-lines' to explain entrenched habits ofthought which might explain inertia in the face of change. This is not an ideaI have heard expressed before in UCLan. But in questions later, this conceptualinnovation was eagerly embraced by nearly everyone. No inertia there."

 

[emphasis entirely mine]

 

http://inthespaceofreasons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/health-research-with-real-impact.html

 

As I said, I know nothing of the philosopher author. Nevertheless, I suggest he is being more than a little wry. There's a set of 'real reasons' (not just one), and, in my view, it's mostly populated by ignorance, fear, and arrogance on the part of clinicians.

 

Any other views?

Edited May 17, 2013 by nolegion

[Sali]

I haven't read the blog yet, but the excerpt you provide states 'obstacles' to recording, but does not name them.

 

If overt recording of consultations etc were the norm I wonder how it would change the clinician/patient relationship.

 

I'm not sure I see any down side for patients. Able to replay the recordings in a calmer environment and with the option to share the consultation verbatim with family/friends who can offer advice and support, can only be a good thing.

 

It seems to me, at the moment, when the medical profession are accused of malpractice, their first response is emphatic denial.

 

I believe the reason why we in the UK are becoming increasingly litigious is because of a culture of unaccountability within our health service, and organisations set up to defend and protect us (patients) are just so ineffective. In the face of this, what option is there but to turn to the law in the pursuit of justice?

 

Recordings should enable a quick(er) resolution, rather than what we have at the moment where hospitals, (managers and lawyers), not content with the initial damage they have caused a patient or their bereaved relatives, extend their anguish by dragging out cases for years and years before finally settling out of court.

 

On the other hand, what would we as individuals feel if we were constantly recorded at work? Would it mean we upped our game, were more professional, tried harder, or would we feel restrained and uncomfortable and how would this impact our overall performance?

[Clear33]

@nolgeion...

 

somewhere on this thread I read I could declare a communication embargo and request from a lab that I the patient am the only one to receive MY test result medical data... (I hope I got this right)

 

The background to my annoyance (you can skip this part if time is of the essence) - I spent months in email exchange over my Vitamin D3 blood test with the practice manager. I was messed abouf something wrotten. My D3 results went missing.

 

Practice manager said because I had used an NHS health suite which was out of their area, that I had to ring up myself to track down my blood test results.

 

I rang the health suite and after being given the run around was finally given the phone number of tge NHS hospital lab my bloods were sent to.

 

I rung this lab and the woman was rude to me. She told me I should not be ringing and not only would she not tell me my blood results but she would not even confirm if they had received them.

 

I was upset, tired and out of phone credit.

 

I emailed my surgery informing them of this new information - I provided them with the Direct lab number( to save them the hassle I went through) and asked them to ri.g it to find out about my blood test results.

 

It was actually important blood result to me.

 

They would not!!! They were rude. And I was left in Limbo.

Fortunately I had already been supplied with another Vitsmin D3 blood test sheet - so I took the test again - assuming it hax been lost.

 

They were not at all pleased and because I had in depth and detsil written the whole episode down in emails- they started to call me 'demanding'

 

They cancelled the second blood test and miraculously the first blood test turned up and said they had told me all along that it would take longer (lies).

 

MY question is this: should I have said to lab - These are my blood test results and ONLY I shall be the receiver of them?

 

My further question is does this apply to private labs? For example I am trying to purchase a private blood test.

 

This is frought with its own complications it seems too!

 

Apparently I have to get a Doctor or Nutritionist to apply on my behalf for my blood test (that the NHS is too incompetent to supply)....

 

If I do go along with this rubbish (as I think as a paying consumer, since it is MY body, My health and My money) I should be empowered to the right to get my own tests done - can I request that my private test results remain only between me and the lab.

 

I have asked the Lab this and they say:

 

"it is lab policy to provide results only to the Doctor or health care provider"

 

Am I bei.g fobbed off again? I maybe a bit bumpy on the road but I am going to regain my own personal power back regarding my own health!!!

 

Thanks

[Clear33]

I haven't read the blog yet, but the excerpt you provide states 'obstacles' to recording, but does not name them.

 

If overt recording of consultations etc were the norm I wonder how it would change the clinician/patient relationship.

 

I'm not sure I see any down side for patients. Able to replay the recordings in a calmer environment and with the option to share the consultation verbatim with family/friends who can offer advice and support, can only be a good thing.

 

It seems to me, at the moment, when the medical profession are accused of malpractice, their first response is emphatic denial.

 

I believe the reason why we in the UK are becoming increasingly litigious is because of a culture of unaccountability within our health service, and organisations set up to defend and protect us (patients) are just so ineffective. In the face of this, what option is there but to turn to the law in the pursuit of justice?

 

Recordings should enable a quick(er) resolution, rather than what we have at the moment where hospitals, (managers and lawyers), not content with the initial damage they have caused a patient or their bereaved relatives, extend their anguish by dragging out cases for years and years before finally settling out of court.

 

On the other hand, what would we as individuals feel if we were constantly recorded at work? Would it mean we upped our game, were more professional, tried harder, or would we feel restrained and uncomfortable and how would this impact our overall performance?

 

 

The public is recorded all the time - on buses, trains, high streets there is CCTV. There is cameras on till operators to check if they are stealing from the till.

 

When we ring call centres etc we are informed the call is recorded and monitored.

 

Powerful titles sich as Doctor versus vulnerable titles such as patient means in the past Doctors get away with their nonsense becsuse they say that the patient is ill, cant remember very well, grieving and cant assess the situation appropriately - in my experience, this is nonsense.

 

And so patients dont have a leg to stand on.

 

The other places which ought to be being recorded are slaughter houses and animal experimentation labs and psychiactric units

.

 

Its always where there is Power OVER someone where abuse occurs. This is the common thread.

[Clear33]

Here is the reference from this thread:

 

No. If you meet any resistance at all eg.”Can’t really do that, you see it’s not a really a*letter*as such, just a print-out”, or ,“We have to write back to the GP first - you see the professional position is that you are actually referred*"by them",”*declare a communications embargo: tell the consultant\hospital thatyou forbid*anycommunication, letter, telephone-call, follow-up of any sort, except*"directly"**to you.*You are fully entitled to do this, and even if you are feeling pretty ‘ropey’ the shock value will rouse your spirits.

 

See the General Medical Council’s publication ‘Good Medical Practice’ para. 52:

 

*“*52". If you provide treatment or advice for a patient, but are not the patient's general practitioner, you should tell the general practitioner the results of the investigations, the treatment provided and any other information necessary for the continuing care of the patient*, unless the patient objects.”*"

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_...nformation.asp

 

 

The idea, of course, is promptly to re-arrange the consultant’s ideas about sharing information i.e promptly to send you a copy as originally requested - but I wish I had been a fly on the wall in the appointment with a rude an arrogant (and medically wrong) little GP with whom a patient of my acquaintance discussed a test result which the patient held but the GP had not seen."

 

Whilst I was left in Limbo with two departments refusing to talk to me about my blood tests and one telling me the other department had to contact tgem - and that department telling me I had to contact them ... it was not as serious as when the same situation occurred to my mother.

 

She was supposed to be being monitored for bloods whikst on Chemo. The hospital said her Surgery shoild do it, her Surgery said the hospital should do it.

 

In the mean time my Mothers Kreatanine levels went to 1300 and she nearly died. Her kidneys were knackered from it, she could no longer receive Chemo (which was what probably knackered her kidneys - but should have been monitored via blood tests as she coukd have had emergency stents before serious damage done)

 

So I am fed up I cant simply purchase a blood test and be the only receiver of the results easily and effortlessly.

[nolegion]

I've been following recent posts with interest but have lacked the time to add anything considered.

 

Sali. I think that over the time this thread has been running (3 years, goodness gracious) I discern that you and I think much alike on the issues that arise. The only thing I had thought to point out – the fact that very many of us are already recorded at work one way another - I now see Clear 33 has added ahead of me.

 

Amongst the other points which to my mind mean that medics haven't a leg to stand on in trying to resist patients' wishes about recording, is the very fact that it is centrally and exactly their professional but state-funded obligation to provide advice.

 

The norm is that that advice is given orally – not usually in, or even backed up by, writing routinely provided to the advised, which contrasts with the position in many other professional transactions. If patients, completely at their own option, want a complete and accurate record (entirely at their own expense) of how they are advised about their own bodies, I say it is disgracefully unprofessional to try put any impediments in a patient's way at all.

 

Clear 33. Thank you for tracking down that earlier post about a communications 'embargo'. It was tactic devised by another patient who,like you, had totally lost patience with the information 'limbo' you refer to, but I couldn't myself remember where in this thread I had brought it up.

 

Be warned, the GMC's 'Good Medical Practice' document is amended every few years (the most recent edition being only a few weeks old)and the wording of the para. I quoted back in 2010 now no longer appears in it.

 

This far more equivocal statement appears in the (dilute,flabby and unenforceable) "NHS Constitution"

 

"You have the right torequest that your confidential information is not used beyond your own care andtreatment and to have your objections considered, and where your wishes cannotbe followed, to be told the reasons including the legal basis."

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Documents/2013/the-nhs-constitution-for-england-2013.pdf(page 8)

 

Nevertheless, I still think that the confidentiality principle can be used to effect on occasion, at least when one is dealing with an NHS doctor.

 

If you are referred to a consultant say, that doctor does not know when he\she sees you whether you have changed GPs from the referring GP, or perhaps whether you have just fallen out big time with that GP and are looking for alternative primary care. They won't like it and may try tow riggle, but if you insist you want any test result \follow-up letter sent only to you there is nothing they can do about it if you stand your ground and forbid alternatives – and you are of course recording the instructions you give…

 

And, yes, I think there may well be good reason to insist that the results etc are sent only to you (not just a copy) – basically because if it's just a copy you ask for they won't note what you say and it won't get actioned.

 

This is what happened in the case of the chap who, liketurboAndy, took on North Somerset PCT and others (best link is the third of turboandy's post #319 this thread). I can now add to the story by reporting that that recording patient had indeed asked the consultantconcerned to send him a copy of the test results. Nothing came, so he chased the hospital for the usual run-a-round. When the hospital finally did send copies he saw that the results had been dated and despatched weeks earlier – and his GP, although fully aware that the tests the patient hadundergone were to establish whether or not he had cancer, hadn't bother tocontact him either. Limbo is the right word.

 

Regrets, I have no knowledge of anyone succeeding in getting e.g. a private laboratory facility to which a GP has directed a blood sample for testing to divulge information to themselves as patient. From your account,Clear33, I think you did everything that I could think of. Incredibly stressful and insulting, and behaviour of a sort likely to increase, I fear, as the NHS becomes increasingly fragmented and privatised. If push came to shove I would try to invoke the Data Protection Act to be provided with copy personal data - but that can take even longer than run-a-around you encountered.

 

If anyone has any suggestions on this point, I would be glad to hear them.

Edited May 23, 2013 by nolegion

[nolegion]

Of course, if we ever get full online access to our own medical records, at least at at GP level - which is still ostensibly the plan, though the carping and foot-dragging by GPs on the issue remains as strenuous as it was predictable - things might speeed up a bit. But, even then, getting the information sought will as often as not depend on when a GP gets round to adding a test result to an individual patient's accessible account.