The concern of this page is how RBKC’s collected/acquired F’s HIV relevant information and recorded it. The disclosure of it is addressed here.
On 26th June 2014, F received a statement from the Department of Health that ‘Local authorities are not entitled to ask for, or receive , an individual’s confidential medical records, including information about a person’s HIV status‘.
F was aware that his HIV clinic and GP NEVER provided HIV relevant information to RBKC. The ONLY letter provided to RBKC by F’s clinic was to support his housing application. Even this letter did not disclose specifically any of F’s medical conditions.
Taking into consideration F’s May 2010 amendment to his Information Sharing Agreement, he became interested as to what HIV relevant information, if any, was still held by RBKC in their files.
On 24th February 2014, F requested RBKC to provide him with legally sound justification for the disclosure of his HIV+ status to the LGO.
On 11th March 2014, RBKC replied, telling him that a phone referral was made by St Mary’s hospital, when Mr Keighly, “RBKC’s Specialist HIV Care Manager, visited him on 13th April 2014. Nobody has been able to confirm this statement or provide any evidence of it actually taking place. F was sent over an ordinary, unencrypted email service, a copy of a letter from the St John’s Hospice, dated 25th April 2000.
F was utterly shocked when he received the NEVER SEEN BEFORE letter. He does NOT recall that he was made aware of it and that he gave his consent for its issue, which was NOT necessary. Furthermore, a letter giving out such a highly confidential medical information should have NEVER been sent by RBKC by email; service which is regarded to by unsafe.
Since F left hospital in mid-2000, a number of Social Workers completed regular Care Plan Reviews. This was in relation to the RBKC’s contribution towards the cost of a ‘domestic cleaner‘, to assist F with mundane domestic chores, he was unable to do properly, due to the physical impairment suffered as a result of a bad stroke in 2000.
During their visits, F may have discussed, in an atmosphere of strict CONFIDENTIALITY, the progress of his HIV condition. He never imagined that this information would be recorded on his file, as it was NOT relevant to the provision of the cleaner, or anything else, for that matter.
When F received the asked for copies of his Care Plan Reviews, dating back to 2000, he discovered that NOT A SINGLE Review was signed by him. The Reviews were never given to him for his review and signature, as is the case in all the local authorities we asked. A copy of the Review was NEVER given to him, for his records. He was unaware what was recorded.
He found that RBKC had made no effort to remove HIV relevant information from these Reviews, as instructed in the Information Sharing Agreement.
Not only the acronym HIV, but also very detailed clinical information about the condition’s progress, were clear to see. The life saving medication F is obliged to take and the inevitable nasty side effects he suffers as a consequence.
The fact that F’s HIV status is irrelevant to the provision of the ‘domestic help’, is confirmed by the absence of ANY medical information, let alone his HIV+ status on his assessment document. The space for medical information on the FACE Report is BLANK.
On 28th September 2015, F wrote to Ms Baillie, about the Care Plan Reviews, stating surprise that his HIV information was recorded on these unverified and unsigned Reports. Ms Baillie replied on 6th October 2015, that she could /would not respond to any of the points raised by F.
CONCLUSION: F’s HIV relevant information was collected and disclosed without his consent or knowledge. THIS INFORMATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROVISION OF CARE AND NONE of RBKC’s BUSINESS.