Confidentiality Question

RE: Confidentiality Question

Richard Carter — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 19:04:19 GMT

agree - the information relates to the patient, not the client and this patient has been sold on so effectively previous history as with any other case where an animal has been rehomed, has also been sold on. The only thing not sold on is personal details of the previous client.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Anthony Todd — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:45:55 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]Is there any way round this, for the horse's sake?[/quote]

Be a sad and laughable day if the horse suffers because of some ethical posturing by people who really should be acting humanely, and solely, in the interest of the horse!

Will it harm the horse or help it!?

Should such failure to disclose the surgical details have adverse influence on the horse's current illness I would suggest that the current owners would have an action against the equine hospital that refused.

That the horse had an operation is not in dispute and is the legal fact that has been established.

All that is asked for is the nature of the procedure.

The surgical details are immaterial surely as far as "disclosure" is concerned?

PS the one stars are not me and add nothing at all, as usual [!!], to a reasoned discussion!

RE: Confidentiality Question

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:08:25 GMT

[quote user="Edward Jones"]I don't think data protection laws apply to clinical records, because clinical records are not personal data [/quote]That's pretty well much what I intimated. However where this may fall down is that in order for the previous vet to access the case records the new owner and his/her vet, i.e. Wren, must by definition know the previous owner's details and therefore the two are put together and there may be a data protection conflict.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Edward Jones — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:56:56 GMT

I don't think data protection laws apply to clinical records, because clinical records are not personal data (although sometimes vets do allow personal data to leak into clinical records).

Nonetheless, the code of conduct obliges us to respect client confidentiality. However, it states that disclosure can be justifiable by animal welfare concerns which may apply in this case.

It is possible to directly speak to the RCVS about individual cases and I gather they can be useful. It depends on whether the veterinary hospital involved is willing to work with you at all or if you're being stone-walled. However, asking in terms of animal welfare may well swing it somewhat with them.

Seeing as the previous owner is out of the scene, I don't really see much practical opposition in disclosure - quite the opposite, there's a good practical justification, it's just ensuring that no one trips up over the rules.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:43:09 GMT

[quote user="Wren"]

Unfortunately vettings don't really work like this.

[/quote]I've never been foolish, brave, unfortunate experienced enough to do one but from all the horror stories that get circulated I got the impression buying horses was one big circle of deceit and dodgy dealings so I am suitably informed, thanks.

[quote user="Wren"]Hopefully it will all turn out OK in the end.[/quote]Hear, hear.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Wren — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:19:26 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] However, reading between the lines, I get the impression that the new owner knows the previous owner who may be traceable so it could still come back to haunt them if she/he kicks up a fuss because she/he thinks they've been shafted.[/quote]

This is definitely not the case. The horse was bought from the other end of the country from someone they had never met before and only dealt with on the 2 or 3 occasions necessary to arrange the purchase. There is no feeling that they had been shafted - they knew about the previous injury, just not in enough detail to help me out. It is an old horse that had quite a successful competition career, but came to the current owner to be a happy hacker as a form of semi-retirement

RE: Confidentiality Question

Wren — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:16:47 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

One would assume that the previous owner was aware of the treatment that the horse had and that should have been admitted to the new owner so the new owner's vet (you presumably) could have known this when performing the pre-purchase examination. If they did not, then they may be guilty of fraud and their loss of confidentiality a lesser issue. On that basis the vet may be guilty of assisting them in that fraud if he refuses to release the records.

[/quote]

Unfortunately vettings don't really work like this. Whilst the purchaser has a right to request the history, they don't have to be given it. And when vetting a horse it is rare (in fact almost never, unless the horse has previously been treated by our practice, in which case we may well decline to vet it anyway) to have any veterinary history. I can't remember a scenario when I've ever had access to it, and I've done hundreds of PPEs.

When buying horses 'caveat emptor' applies. The vendor does not have to disclose anything. Of course if they lie or mislead in response to a direct question then you would have a case.

Anyway, none of that is an issue in this case. My client knew the bare bones of the problem the horse had previously had, and decided that they were still happy to buy the horse, so no-one has been defrauded. Unfortunately the little knowledge they have is not enough detail for what I need.

Thanks, I will try the softly softly approach (although one of the senior vets was consulted when I asked, and it was them that said no), but I don't want to upset anyone. Hopefully it will all turn out OK in the end.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:08:43 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Iain Richards"]I can see both sides. Can you not speak directly to a vet? [/quote]

Yes. See if you can speak directly to a senior partner and ask for a common-sense approach in the interest of the horse's welfare. And, er, if the previous owner has lost all contact, she's not going to know, is she?

[/quote]Given the clinical history relates to the horse, so long as the previous owner's details are not disclosed then there can be no comeback. However, reading between the lines, I get the impression that the new owner knows the previous owner who may be traceable so it could still come back to haunt them if she/he kicks up a fuss because she/he thinks they've been shafted.

RE: Confidentiality Question

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:03:43 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]I can see both sides. Can you not speak directly to a vet? [/quote]

RE: Confidentiality Question

Iain Richards — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:33:21 GMT

I understand that this stems from RCVS to help prevent some practices gaining the records when the client wasn't actually registered.

I can see both sides. Can you not speak directly to a vet?

RE: Confidentiality Question

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:20:28 GMT

RE: Confidentiality Question

Chris Geddes — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:44:57 GMT

Would VDS help, if you are a member? On the basis that if you do the wrong thing you could be in trouble.

Or, if you're a BVA member, use their free legal advice line? Or is that only for personal stuff?

Suspect you may just have to do without it, unless the old owner can be contacted?