Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on March 20, 2009
Occupational Medicine 2009 59(3):153-158; doi:10.1093/occmed/kqp012
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
59/3/153    most recent
kqp012v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Batty, L.
Right arrow Articles by Holland-Elliott, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Batty, L.
Right arrow Articles by Holland-Elliott, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Interpretation of medical information acts by UK occupational physicians

Lucia Batty1,2, Nick Glozier3 and Kevin Holland-Elliott1,2

1 Department of Occupational Health and Safety, King’s College Hospital, London, UK
2 Brunel University Business School, London, UK
3 Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Background Difficulties arise in applying the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 in occupational health practice. There is no guidance on detailed aspects of applying these Acts in practice and consistent advice has proved difficult to obtain.

Aims To audit the understanding and practice of UK occupational physicians to see if a consensus view existed.

Methods A postal questionnaire sent to all UK-based Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM) members between December 2005 and June 2006. Responses were analysed using the SPSS 13.0 software.

Results Responses were received from 726 SOM members, a response rate of 48%. The study revealed wide variation and a limited consensus in practice. Significant differences existed between doctors with a Diploma in Occupational Medicine and those with higher Faculty qualifications, between part-time and full-time practitioners and between doctors who qualified pre- and post-1974.

Conclusions The audit revealed wide variation in responding to clinical scenarios in relation to both the Access to Medical Reports and the Data Protection Acts. The findings have implications for clinical practice, policy and research. The majority of respondents reported that national guidance is needed.

Keywords      Access to Medical Reports Act; audit; consent; Data Protection Act; Occupational Medicine, reports

Correspondence to: Lucia Batty, Department of Occupational Health and Safety, King's College Hospital, London, UK. Tel: +44 (0)203 299 3387; fax: +44 (0)203 299 1765; e-mail: lucia.batty{at}kch.nhs.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.