The Data Protection Act is designed to protect data more than protect people.
Such were the thoughts of one commentator this week. In primary eye care, the times that we have to consider breaching the maintenance of patient confidentiality and adherence to data protection usually relate to one of two scenarios. The most obvious example concerns driving, where a patient clearly has a level of vision lower than that needed to take the number plate test and where they are considered to represent a danger to themselves and the public.
Most of us would be comfortable in such an instance contacting the AOP to seek clarification about informing a third party without the consent of the patient in order to protect lives. Recent high profile cases have given some weight to this.
The second scenario is where a patient has not given permission but there is some question as to their ability to offer informed consent. I remember some years ago seeking advice from a GP relating to a schizophrenic patient who was clearly disturbed and not responding to their medication – despite it not being possible to obtain consent to do so. My argument, which at the time the GP was happy with, was that the patient was not in a fit state to offer informed consent. More recently, increasing numbers of cases have occurred where practitioners have dealt with elderly patients with dementia who are in various states of confusion.
Our CET this week offers an overview of the impact of Alzheimer’s disease on ocular health. It is clear from this paper that we will be dealing more and more with this sort of condition and may wish third party involvement without informed consent being an option.
Indeed, if the eye is to be part of screening for such conditions, third parties may include insurance companies. Now might be the time to develop a robust policy for these likely events.