Caldicott Guardians

NOTE: Those not familiar with this matter, may find more  here.

The Caldicott Principles have gone through endless reviews and amendments, as those users found them confused and confusing.  Those of you interested, should do your own research.

It now appears that withe issue  of the GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS, GDPR,   and the  new DATA PROTECTION ACT,  in 2018, that these Principles will go through yet another review and a new version… and so it goes on...

Ms Stella Baillie, at the time of F assessments was not only RBKC’s Director of Adult Social Care, but also their “Caldicott Guardian.

These are governed by Caldicott Guardian Council

NHS organisations have been required to have a Caldicott Guardian since 1998 and they were introduced into social care, run by local authorities,  in 2002, mandated in England by Local Authority Circular: LAC(2002)2. 

As a result of introducing Caldicott Guardians into local authorities, the handling of individual’s confidential medical information is EXACTLY the SAME, despite some claims to the contrary.   Some local authorities are under the misguided impression that they can do with this information as they feel fit.   This would appear to true with RBKC’s handling of F’s not only Confidential medical information, but also that relating to his HIV+ status.

As from 1st April 2002, all local authorities were required to have a senior person appointed as a Caldicott Guardian.  RBKC appointed Ms Stella Baillie as their Guardian.

The Caldicott Guardian has NO statutory rights; his duties are defined in  the Caldicott Guardian Manual.  Although this version was published in 2017, it collects and reiterates  already known  Guardian’s responsibilities

Her main duty is to ensure that ALL RBKC employees  understand and follow the Caldicott Principles, when handling individuals’ medical information.

It is clear from this Blog that Ms Baillie has failed in her responsibilities,  permitting  the blatant and arrogant disregard of ALL of the  SEVEN Principles.  This is also alluded to in HCPC statement to F  dated 23rd July 2013, regarding the RBKC’s procedures and processes relating to handling of personal information.

When, on 24th August 2011,  the LGO asked RBKC for information relating to F’s complaint, Ms Baillie was sent, on the same day, a request for comments on the LGO letter.

Ms Baillie, as all of the others asked,  could not be bothered to reply, as she knew  that this was a part of the LGO sickly charade in trying to convince those involved, that an impartial  investigation was under way.  When in fact, the outcome had already been agreed IN PRIVATE.  Frankly, not a very difficult matter, as the LGO is in no way obliged to justify  his  worthless decision that ‘No injustice was caused‘.

On 28th October 2014, F wrote to Dame Fiona Caldicott, asking her about the handling of information subject to Statutory Restrictions,

On 28th January 2015, F wrote to Mr C Fincken,  Chair of the UK Council of Caldicott Guardians, asking him who should be informed about the disclosure of his HIV status.

On 26th March 2015, Dame Fiona replied, without identifying any faults at RBKC.

It took the HCPC in July 2013,  to identify any administrative shortcoming at RBKC, as addressed above.

On  20th April, 2015, F responded to Dame Fiona’s response, above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.