If I was working in NHS IT - and I used my admin rights to pull data on a relative or friend - I would be summarily sacked.
Same. I'm a medical secretary. The information is far too easily sourced. The last person to look at certain records is always logged, which is why Fletch told Tess he did so.
For someone who is close and worried for the person they care for/love anyone would understand they were just concerned.
Again - COMPLETELY VERBOTEN.
As the Data Subject, Tess has final say over how her data is processed. Her consultant could pull her records and process them while she had the termination, medical secs could process her static data to send the letter... someone in IT has access to back them up (but only at a DB level), a DBA could repair the record (if auth'd by a change request).
Fletch could not even get her data by means of a Data Subject Access Request - as there is no Letter Of Authority (as far as we know) from Tess authorising him access..
I don't know what you do as a job - but if you use IT in any shape or form, you would typically have an annual refresher on the principles of the Data Protection Act.
Of course - under the Health records Act - Jeremy Hunt is the ultimate current data owner...
As the Data Subject, Tess has final say over how her data is processed. Her consultant could pull her records and process them while she had the termination, medical secs could process her static data to send the letter... someone in IT has access to back them up (but only at a DB level), a DBA could repair the record (if auth'd by a change request).
Fletch could not even get her data by means of a Data Subject Access Request - as there is no Letter Of Authority (as far as we know) from Tess authorising him access..
I don't know what you do as a job - but if you use IT in any shape or form, you would typically have an annual refresher on the principles of the Data Protection Act.
Of course - under the Health records Act - Jeremy Hunt is the ultimate current data owner...
I dont have a job lol but ive had work placements in IT but none to that level.
So if you have a partner in the business and is concerned theyre not allowed to check just to be sure?? What if fletch was married to tess?
Still no justification as it wasn't that patient episode.
Breach of Section 55... when the next security audit is done (likely within 12 months) - he's out the door, P45 sent onward.
But what if tess was a patient and she wasnt working. Charlie told her she shouldnt be working so he clearly saw she was unwell and should be there as a patient. Fletch was doing his job as a nurse and a caring friend (or whatever they are )
They don't even allow memory sticks to be used in the Trust I work in now, and everything is heavily encrypted.
They took that long to bung Safeguard on everything and zap USB access? We did that yonks ago at work.. just after the HMRC CD debacle IIRC... took all the CD drives off user depts as well. Every move of data off-network requires sevberal levels of signoff now...
But what if tess was a patient and she wasnt working. Charlie told her she shouldnt be working so he clearly saw she was unwell and should be there as a patient. Fletch was doing his job as a nurse and a caring friend (or whatever they are )
It's still nothing to do with this episode.
If he'd looked at her bloods if she'd had tests done when she was brought in, that would be justified.
But what if tess was a patient and she wasnt working. Charlie told her she shouldnt be working so he clearly saw she was unwell and should be there as a patient. Fletch was doing his job as a nurse and a caring friend (or whatever they are )
ONLY that one patient episode. From admission at that date to her discharge at that date. He has no rights anywhere else in her record.
^ cos tess signed herself off. As i said they didnt think she should be working
Just a side note, zoe done the test for her so she was treating tess as a patient. Fletch just done the same thing zoe done, just without her permission.
^ cos tess signed herself off. As i said they didnt think she should be working
Just a side note, zoe done the test for her so she was treating tess as a patient. Fletch just done the same thing zoe done, just without her permission.
... and committed Gross Misconduct in the act. Unlawful access under the Data Protection Act is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
I think you are just seeing it from a view you want to see it from with Tess as an innocent victim and Fletch as the big bad philanderer, when maybe if Tess hadallowed herself to have been more open and honest Fletch would have been with her now as opposed to retreatingand using self preservation when she finished it. If Fletch was the big bad wolf only out for himself he would never have covered up her mistake.
They took that long to bung Safeguard on everything and zap USB access? We did that yonks ago at work.. just after the HMRC CD debacle IIRC... took all the CD drives off user depts as well. Every move of data off-network requires sevberal levels of signoff now...
I got pulled by my manager last week for using internet 'outside' of break and dinner times.
I was actually quite shocked she'd knew of which websites I'd been on too (nothing sinister).
Let's just take it for what it is.. Two people who love each other and concerned for each other's well being, in a complicated and complex relationship...
Let's just take it for what it is.. Two people who love each other and concerned for each other's well being, in a complicated and complex relationship...
OK - say we were working in the same place - me in IT and you in an end-user role. How would you like it if I misused my admin rights to casually look into your mailfile and home directory when you hadn't called helpdesk about a problem and I was working on your incident ticket?
Goes against their Code of Conduct and Information Security training.
As the Data Subject, Tess has final say over how her data is processed. Her consultant could pull her records and process them while she had the termination, medical secs could process her static data to send the letter... someone in IT has access to back them up (but only at a DB level), a DBA could repair the record (if auth'd by a change request).
Fletch could not even get her data by means of a Data Subject Access Request - as there is no Letter Of Authority (as far as we know) from Tess authorising him access..
I don't know what you do as a job - but if you use IT in any shape or form, you would typically have an annual refresher on the principles of the Data Protection Act.
Of course - under the Health records Act - Jeremy Hunt is the ultimate current data owner...
... and committed Gross Misconduct in the act. Unlawful access under the Data Protection Act is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
It is a soap which means it is fiction, but it is totally unacceptable in fiction as well as in real life for a member of staff to do what Fletch did, and the writers should be told this.
Comments
Same. I'm a medical secretary. The information is far too easily sourced. The last person to look at certain records is always logged, which is why Fletch told Tess he did so.
I thought you hated the way he treated Shirley but I didn't realise you hated Phil as a character lol
Ive always made very clear how much i hated him but id rather this wasnt brought up in this thread. I use tess/fletch as distractions lol
As the Data Subject, Tess has final say over how her data is processed. Her consultant could pull her records and process them while she had the termination, medical secs could process her static data to send the letter... someone in IT has access to back them up (but only at a DB level), a DBA could repair the record (if auth'd by a change request).
Fletch could not even get her data by means of a Data Subject Access Request - as there is no Letter Of Authority (as far as we know) from Tess authorising him access..
I don't know what you do as a job - but if you use IT in any shape or form, you would typically have an annual refresher on the principles of the Data Protection Act.
Of course - under the Health records Act - Jeremy Hunt is the ultimate current data owner...
So if you have a partner in the business and is concerned theyre not allowed to check just to be sure?? What if fletch was married to tess?
Still not allowed.
That's what confidentiality agreements are signed for.
The NHS takes these things very seriously.
What about if tess was a patient ? Like with chantelle in holby? Are they allowed to check then?
Yes but they have to access them then, they have no choice if they have to find something out.
It's a completely different kettle of fish.
Its not really. Tess wasnt working when fletch brought her in. He brought her in as a patient. Charlie even said she shouldnt be working
He looked at a patient episode while she was under Gynae care... nowt to do with him.
Breach of Section 55... when the next security audit is done (likely within 12 months) - he's out the door, P45 sent onward.
But what if tess was a patient and she wasnt working. Charlie told her she shouldnt be working so he clearly saw she was unwell and should be there as a patient. Fletch was doing his job as a nurse and a caring friend (or whatever they are )
It's still nothing to do with this episode.
If he'd looked at her bloods if she'd had tests done when she was brought in, that would be justified.
NHS IT is HEAVILY audited...
Just a side note, zoe done the test for her so she was treating tess as a patient. Fletch just done the same thing zoe done, just without her permission.
Yes yes yes! Agree!!
I got pulled by my manager last week for using internet 'outside' of break and dinner times.
I was actually quite shocked she'd knew of which websites I'd been on too (nothing sinister).
which part are you agreeing with?
i wish people would use bold more to specific bits
For all we know, perhaps the relationship between Fletch and his wife of many years is complex too; the viewers only see part of what is happening.
It is a soap which means it is fiction, but it is totally unacceptable in fiction as well as in real life for a member of staff to do what Fletch did, and the writers should be told this.