“A good blog should be like a woman’s skirt; long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest.”
– A Facebook poster (knowingly misquoting Winston Churchill)
There are roughly 57,000,000 adults in the UK. There are approximately 14,000 adults who are medically retired former police officers with injury awards.
There is no lawful authority to treat 0.000246% of the population any differently. The Data Protection Act nor the GMC guidance do not have an exception saying their requirements don’t apply to those with an injury award.
Confidentiality and medical records
- A doctor should gain a patient’s consent before disclosing information to a third party (and that includes a worker who is being examined only for a medical report)
- The legal right to see a report in advance and withhold consent only applies to reports from a doctor who is treating them, but the GMC guidance makes it clear that this should apply to all medical reports
- Before an employer asks an employee to go for a medical examination for any purpose they should notify the employee what the examination will entail and what the purpose is. The employee should be given the opportunity of challenging any such request if they feel it is unwarranted.
- The doctor should confirm that the patient is aware of the implications of the examination and has consented. They should also advise them that they have the right to withdraw consent at any time.
- There is no need for the full medical record, nor should information on any other conditions be disclosed unless directly relevant. If the employee is concerned over this they should raise it with the doctor and, if necessary, remind them of the GMC advice
My medical records, not yours
Whilst the police pension authority has a right, provided it complies correctly with the Regulations, to ASK a private citizen to attend a medical examination, that right does not impose a duty on the individual to attend the examination.
There is no penalty in the Regulations for refusing to attend. If it is a wilful or negligent refusal, then the PPA may make a decision on degree of disablement on such evidence as is available. Any such decision would need to be rational and should not be punative. If any PPA were to reduce a pension with no clear evidence to support such a decision, then there would be grounds for a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman, or to take the decision to the High Court.
However, a reasoned refusal by an individual to be examined, along the grounds of a well-founded suspicion of the SMP being biased or incompetent should not be taken as a wilful or negligent refusal. Especially if the individual says that they are willing to be assessed by a SMP in whom they can place trust, should the PPA care to find one.
I take it that these regulations do not apply to the police a they do what they want with medial record and in one force anyone occupational/health including the cleaner and handyman canto okay them?
I do not want ant Tom Dick or Harry looking at my records without asking me for my consent.
Police Authorities and SMPs must direct themselves correctly in law and ethics regarding the disclosure of sensitive information under the DPA and FOM/GMC guidance, they rarely do. Are they incapable of understanding the law are is failure to do so deliberate, I believe in many cases it is deliberate. I am at present dealing with Mr SHARP of TVP and his side kick Dr CHENG, Sharp disclosed my medical records without consent, Cheng reckoned he did not need to follow GMC guidelines and I ended up at a PMAB. In the past consent has always been asked for and is the norm however to circumvent Pensions Ombudsman opinion and skew matters in their favour, the issue of consent was ignored or assumed. I am at present considering action as a breach of confidentiality, the case will certainly be referred back to the PO and their professional bodies, both of these so called professionals should know better and believe they are immune to the consequences of their actions.