Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to feel appalled by staff accessing murdered children’s records?

116 replies

girlfriend44 · Yesterday 14:18

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrpdkevvnko

Poor parents of Grace and Barnaby Webber. not only were their children murdered they then found this out about people looking up the records who shouldn't have.

Hope all those people are totally embarrassed. Glad they got caught out.

Barnaby Webber, Grace O'Malley Kumar and Ian Coates

NHS trust sacks staff over accessing attacks victims' records

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust says investigations are ongoing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrpdkevvnko

OP posts:
ScaredButUnavoidable · Yesterday 22:11

Jellycatspyjamas · Yesterday 21:21

I think there’s a difference in being directed to read, by a practice educator or supervisor/qualified worker as part of your practice training and just having a look for whatever reason. Any cases I looked at as a student social worker came with a task eg to do a piece of analysis or reflective writing or to bring to supervision for discussion. We weren’t allowed to just go a trawl files for something interesting - one student was withdrawn from training for looking at a neighbours file without reason or permission.

When something does happen in practice, there are a whole set of reviews to support learning in a structured way. There’s really no excuse for looking at records that you don’t have a permitted reason to look at.

So if the manager of those who have been sacked had told them to look at the records because the manager thought it might benefit their learning, their knowledge or their clinical practice then it would have been ok?

But if the staff had chose to look at the records for those same reasons but they had made the decision for themselves it then becomes a sackable offence?

I’m purely just playing devil’s advocate here.

That’s why I say it’s a grey area.

You say there has to be a permittable reason to look at patient notes, but when it comes to the teaching of students….. do practice educators have the right to allow students to go through lots of patient’s notes and medical records without gaining consent from the patient first? I imagine not but I’m sure it happens all the time.

Like I said, I’m not justifying what these staff members did and I’m glad action has been taken and the issue has been bought into the public domain, but it would be interesting to know what their reasons were for why they did it. I would hope that none of them did it for ghoulish or voyeuristic reasons or to provide information to the press as has been suggested in this thread, which is a horrific thought.

I imagine it was purely for medical interest which although may sound awful to those not in the field, but for those who are in the profession I can understand why they may have wanted to read more and have a deeper understanding/knowledge about the case/injuries/treatment (or whatever specifics they were looking at) more than the average person would.

Accessing the records isn’t morally right but from a professional angle (especially from a learning point of view) I can see why some would think it would be an ok thing to do.

I imagine though that those who have been sacked didnt have any good reason to explain why they did it as I’m sure their explanations would have been taken into account when the decision was made about their punishment. So I’m glad that those who were sacked received the appropriate punishment for their actions.

Jellycatspyjamas · Yesterday 22:25

I think there is a difference in being directed to read a case record for a particular learning point and just having a look for your own interest and learning. For a start I’m sure there are cases with similar enough injuries that aren’t high profile they could have been directed to look at. Someone having oversight of that process removes any question of motive because they’ve sought and gained permission having explained their reasoning. There’s also the ability of the supervisor to refuse permission on any number of grounds.

Yes real cases can provide very useful learning, but it’s also someone’s life so trawling through because you think you might learn something needs some oversight.

SkibidiSigma · Yesterday 22:29

Muffsies · Yesterday 19:50

Is it possible for someone to access the wrong record in error? There must be checks that stop you from pulling up the wrong file i guess, as that could cause a serious issue. I'm just thinking there's loads of people with the same name and dob, and you could type in a wrong nhs number. How do staff prevent errors?

Yes, I've done it loads of times by typing one digit wrong. The thing is, that would only bring up the front page and I wouldn't actually delve into their records. I would just quickly search again for the right patient. There is a trail of everything so anyone auditing would be able to see that I hadn't read pages of their info, I was only in their records for seconds and the next patient I searched had a hospital number 1 digit different. That sort of thing wouldn't cause a problem

compactmotif · Yesterday 22:40

ScaredButUnavoidable · Yesterday 22:11

So if the manager of those who have been sacked had told them to look at the records because the manager thought it might benefit their learning, their knowledge or their clinical practice then it would have been ok?

But if the staff had chose to look at the records for those same reasons but they had made the decision for themselves it then becomes a sackable offence?

I’m purely just playing devil’s advocate here.

That’s why I say it’s a grey area.

You say there has to be a permittable reason to look at patient notes, but when it comes to the teaching of students….. do practice educators have the right to allow students to go through lots of patient’s notes and medical records without gaining consent from the patient first? I imagine not but I’m sure it happens all the time.

Like I said, I’m not justifying what these staff members did and I’m glad action has been taken and the issue has been bought into the public domain, but it would be interesting to know what their reasons were for why they did it. I would hope that none of them did it for ghoulish or voyeuristic reasons or to provide information to the press as has been suggested in this thread, which is a horrific thought.

I imagine it was purely for medical interest which although may sound awful to those not in the field, but for those who are in the profession I can understand why they may have wanted to read more and have a deeper understanding/knowledge about the case/injuries/treatment (or whatever specifics they were looking at) more than the average person would.

Accessing the records isn’t morally right but from a professional angle (especially from a learning point of view) I can see why some would think it would be an ok thing to do.

I imagine though that those who have been sacked didnt have any good reason to explain why they did it as I’m sure their explanations would have been taken into account when the decision was made about their punishment. So I’m glad that those who were sacked received the appropriate punishment for their actions.

"I imagine it was purely for medical interest which although may sound awful to those not in the field, but for those who are in the profession I can understand why they may have wanted to read more and have a deeper understanding/knowledge about the case/injuries/treatment (or whatever specifics they were looking at) more than the average person would."

Give over. Why are you trying to make a data breach sound noble?

What "pure" medical interest would administrative and clerical employees have? How would the other employees actually in healthcare roles have known enough to specifically think this offered them a unique professional learning opportunity as opposed to just fulfilling some morbid curiosity? This was people who were murdered in the street, not some kind of novel virus being managed where that lame excuse might sound slightly less risible but would still not be a defence.

I do not accept that any ethical fit and proper medical professional is going to hear about a series of atrocious murders that are subject to criminal proceedings and think "what a fantastic learning opportunity, I simply must violate these patients to learn more about this atrocity for the pure purpose of developing my medical expertise in the specific topic of the victims' unknown injuries".

Absolute bullshit. They were nosy and had no respect or self-control or both.

compactmotif · Yesterday 22:54

Patients are humans, not injects to satisfy medical curiosity and whims. So many of the excuses offered here evoke the mindset behind the organ retention scandals.

"This investigation was prompted by evidence given to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry which spoke of the benefits of retaining hearts for the purpose of study and teaching and identified Alder Hey as holding the largest collection. Previously, the Director of the Association of Community Health Councils had expressed concerns about contraventions of the Human Tissue Act 1961 to the then Secretary of State for Health.

The investigation set out to investigate the removal, retention, and disposal of human tissue and organs at Alder Hey Children’s hospital following hospital post-mortem examinations and, the extent to which the Human Tissue Act 1961 (HTA) had been complied with. It involved examination of the professional practice and management action and systems, including what information, if any, was given to the parents of deceased children relating to organ or tissue removal, retention and disposal."

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-royal-liverpool-childrens-inquiry-report

GingersOwner26 · Yesterday 23:36

Runningswanker · Yesterday 20:27

The computer systems won't prevent staff from making an error - and bear in mind these systems are expensive to set up, so aren't replaced very often, so they won't be up to date tech.
However IT wouldn't just be able to see what file you've looked at, but how long you were on it and what pages. Most systems will have some sort of 'front screen' with basic demographic details etc on it. There's a big difference between clicking into that, realising you've made a mistake and closing it, compared to going through the file and accessing records case notes, documents/images etc.

This came up where I worked a few years back - we had someone use the social care database to look up her ex-partner and find out the address he'd moved to after he'd left her and chosen not to give her his new address. I don't know exactly how it went down as a lot of it blew up after I got moved to another team in a restructure, but Ex found out and made a formal complaint. Former co-worker was working out her notice after being made redundant in that same restructure when it came out; after it was found out, she was made to leave there and then.

There was an investigation into who else had looked up Ex's record - one of my friends got questioned about it because she had accessed it in error while looking for someone else's. Usually no one really makes an issue of something like someone clicking the wrong Charlie Smith by mistake (it is possible to tell that someone's just clicked in and straight out again once they've realised it's the wrong one), but this one was looked into more because there had been a complaint.

I am surprised that the records in Nottinghamshire weren't restricted though, I know that at least with social care records that can be, and is, done (those Fife ones definitely should have been) so I don't believe that NHS can't do likewise!

EmeraldShamrock000 · Yesterday 23:38

It’s disgusting. Some people are vile.
There should have a system in place to flag this immediately. Staff should not be in access patients records unless they are treating them.

GeorgeMichaelsCat · Today 09:12

TeenLifeMum · Yesterday 16:33

But you really don’t get much money and they were stabbed so it’s fairly straightforward. It’s not enough money to risk your job over. With the Russian poisoning in Salisbury I can understand it more (not justifying it).

You do if you have information that will help their article stand out. E.G. Victim X just recovered from cancer. Not large amounts of money, but they would get paid.

NotMeAtAll · Today 09:20

I'm amazed at their stupidity.

CurlewKate · Today 09:30

Not sure this is appropriate for AIBU? Of COURSE it’s completely appalling!

ByQuaintAzureWasp · Today 09:54

lenaperkins · Yesterday 14:31

I worked for a hospital Trust and had to go on a conference related to my field. I brought up the issue of staff looking at records for prurient reasons, and everyone scoffed it wouldn’t happen. Totally not surprised by this, especially for clerical/ non professional staff. It’s not like a doctor who’ll lose everything, they’ll just move on.

The majority of Administrative (and many other) categories of staff should not have access to whole patient records. A failure of proper data management.

Runningswanker · Today 10:03

ByQuaintAzureWasp · Today 09:54

The majority of Administrative (and many other) categories of staff should not have access to whole patient records. A failure of proper data management.

Of course adminstrative staff would need access to the patient records, who do you think adds the doctors notes, types and uploads the letters, uploads scans, records the phones calls etc? There really aren't that many administrative roles in health that aren't doing the admin for health staff!

Tel12 · Today 10:06

Monzo1ss · Yesterday 15:50

So no less than 25 NHS staff members inappropriately accessed those records at that one Nottingham trust alone. Seems to me hugely indicative of the culture there. It must be common practice for them to do this, they just got caught out this time as the victims pushed.

Agreed. They must be looking up everyone that they know.

TeenLifeMum · Today 12:23

GeorgeMichaelsCat · Today 09:12

You do if you have information that will help their article stand out. E.G. Victim X just recovered from cancer. Not large amounts of money, but they would get paid.

Not enough to risk a permanent job over!

GeorgeMichaelsCat · Today 13:59

TeenLifeMum · Today 12:23

Not enough to risk a permanent job over!

Depends who it is though surely.

Monzo1ss · Today 14:25

girlfriend44 · Yesterday 17:13

Paid for what?

Handing that info to the press etc?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread