Optician = medical professional so cannot release info to anyone
From memory I think the specsaver/vision express business model is an odd one. An optician with a franchise shop business wrapped around it. The optician passes on the prescrition to you and you give it to the shop and they use your need for glasses/lenses and the fact you are stood in a room full of merchandise to twist you into a sale. The two entities are related but independent. Did the optician or the 'shop' do the blabbing?
I'm not sure I'd be too fussed in your situation.
Much to amusement of many here TJagain is completely right. Providing information without consent is a breach of data protection but with minor consequences here. I would contact the opticians register a complaint and ask them to look at their SOP for giving out patient data. It’s of minor consequences here but in a (probably highly rare) other circumstance it could have more serious consequences.
Sounds like it's time to be de-Zeiss-ive, but don't get too angry or you'll get Raybanned from the store.
Nealglover-
If you think a patient is unfit to driveA221
The DVLA and the DVA have legal responsibility for deciding if a person is medically unfit to drive.
A222
The patient is legally responsible for informing the DVLA or DVA if they do not meet the vision standard for driving. Information on how they can do this is in the Useful information section below. However, if you think the patient may pose a very real risk of danger to the public, but you are not sure whether you should act, ask yourself:
what might the outcome be in the short or longer term if I do not raise my concern? And,
how could I justify why I did not raise the concern?
A223
If you decide that the patient is unfit to drive, you should:
first tell the patient that they are unfit to drive and give the reasons. You may wish to discuss your concerns with a relative or carer, if the patient consents to this
tell the patient that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or DVA about their condition
put your advice in writing to the patient
record your advice and keep a copy of any correspondence to the patient on the patient record, and
notify the patient’s GP, if appropriate, with the patient’s consent.
A224
Sometimes the actions in para A223 might not achieve their aim, or would take too long to do so. You have a duty of confidentiality to the patient, but this is not absolute and can be broken if it is in the public interest to do so. Guidance from the Department of Health includes the example of reporting a driver who rejects medical advice not to drive as one where the public interest can be a defence to breaching patient confidentiality.78
A225
If you conclude the public interest outweighs the duty of confidentiality, you should:
notify the appropriate authority (DVLA or DVA) in writing, and, if appropriate, provide evidence of clinical findings (see useful information below)
notify the patient’s GP of the action being taken, and
notify the patient, if appropriate.
A226
If you are considering informing the DVLA or DVA that the patient may not be fit to drive,79 you may wish to contact your professional or representative body for advice.
See section on Confidentiality.
References
78 Department of Health(2010) Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice. Supplementary guidance: public interest disclosures [Accessed 27 Oct 2017]
79 DVLA. Health conditions and driving [Accessed 27 Oct 2017]
Looks like hell of a minefield and wouldnt like to try that unless I had my employers support. Which I doubt he would have.
convertThe two entities are related but independent.
Sounds more like a hairdressers
thegeneralist - Member
Words fail me....
[img] 
[/img]
esselgruntfuttock - Member
Throw an equally huge book at them
No point, they'll see it coming.
and
giantalkali - Member
Sounds like it's time to be de-Zeiss-ive, but don't get too angry or you'll get Raybanned from the store.
Very good, very good indeed.
In all honesty this is not a wind up. I have no problems at all that Mrs A knows about my glasses, the prescription, price, type etc. I keep a copy of the prescription and receipt in the travel wallet in case I need a replacement when we are abroad.
My issue is that I was annoyed that details of my purchase had been passed on. Possibly mountains out of molehills but I do feel that it should not have happened.
OP please don't make a "spectacle" of yourself.
Take a good long hard look and the horizon will be clearer
Squirrelking they can tell the DVLA as you found out after Googling. Confidentiality doesn’t go beyond the law but it has to be in the interest of the public, it’s not particularly difficult. Give the person a chance to do it themselves, if they don’t prompt them again if they still don’t and pose enough risk you can intorm the relevant party, document all processes as you go.
Squirrelking-
If you conclude the public interest outweighs the duty of confidentiality, you should:
notify the appropriate authority (DVLA or DVA) in writing, and, if appropriate, provide evidence of clinical findings
That’s all you need to know really.
If an optician has told someone they are unfit to drive, and they KNOW they have continued to do so, they are in the clear to report them.
No issues whatsoever. No grey areas, they just do it.
A close mate is an optician and he’s done it multiple times with various employers over the years as it really pisses him off (like permanent drink driving!)
No idea why your mate really changed jobs, but I don’t think it was that 😉
tonyg2003 - MemberMuch to amusement of many here TJagain is completely right.
*Basks in self righteous glow*
I shall frame this and put it on my wall
I can’t believe there are people on this thread share some level of outrage. I don’t care about the legalities or advice on optician college websites. This ‘incident’ just requires a modicum of common sense:
[b]No personal* data was released to anyone whom the OP didn’t want to have it[/b]
Don’t go reporting this to anyone or go create a fuss. You’ll at best make an unnecessary scene and at worst get someone to lose their job for no reason
* your type of lens (not prescription) is not sensitive personal information
It seems there was a clear breach of the data protection act.
Fanatic - yes it is legally. You may not think it is but the law would disagree with you.
None of us are outraged. some of us understand that this is a serious breach of patient and data confidentiality albeit one with negligible consequences
Some of us live with this sort of stuff every day and have also seen severe consequences from what appears to be innocent actions in passing on information.
Don’t go reporting this to anyone or go create a fuss. You’ll at best make an unnecessary scene and at worst get someone to lose their job for no reason
Couldn’t agree more.
Some of us live with this sort of stuff every day and have also seen severe consequences from what appears to be innocent actions in passing on information.
Understand that, but in this case, I’ll wager the person in the opticians knows bothe OP and his wife, that they have been in there together previously/recently etc etc.
I’m not saying they were in the right. But it’s not worth someone potentially losing their job over.
Did they tell your wife about your eye herpes?
My point is there were zero consequences here. And I find it hard to invent a scenario where disclosing the type of lens could result in any negative consequences.
This sort of over sensitive interpretation of laws invented for different/ more obvious situations grinds my gears. It’s certainly not as clear cut breach of data protection law as some make out.
Get off your high horse. No harm no foul. Save the outrage for something that matters.
They wouldn't lose a job over it unless its a repeated pattern of behaviour or the boss is looking for an excuse to sack them. Its a verbal warning level offense
Who is outraged? NO one that I can see.
Its not an oversensitive interpretation of the law. Its simply the law.
They wouldn't lose a job over it unless its a repeated pattern of behaviour or the boss is looking for an excuse to sack them. Its a verbal warning level offense
If it were me, I’d rather not leave it up to your guesswork what the consequences of reporting this non event would be.
It ain’t the law. It’s your interpretation of the law. I am at best 50/50 sure your interpretation is correct.
Most people seem to be missing the point. There were no serious consequences here but unless the opticians look at their patient confidentiality systems there could be consequences in another case. It’s useful feedback to the clinicians to give them the chance to improve their SOP. I work in a very highly regulated and litigious clinical area and deal with this sort of stuff daily.
Who is outraged? NO one that I can see.
Correct. I think the OP said he was “a bit miffed”
But was he really ?
Or did he just do that thing that seems really popular these days ...
and spot something (that had no effect on him at all) and realise it was something that technically he could complain about, and go for it !
It also advises taking professional advice before informing the DVLA, that to me is a red flag that says its not as simple as it appears.
And yes, there were other issues but this was one of them.
My optician not only talks about my wife’s history but also my father in law’s (including some pretty detailed info suggesting my wife may well end up with similar eye problems that he has). Got to say that I was pretty surprised at the level of detail he went into.
When it comes to data protection. Wait until you see the new GDPR laws!
Alison from the garage told my wife in passing that me and Billy always get two bacon rolls each from her on early shifts, and I got a row when I got home. Can I make a claim?
It also advises taking professional advice before informing the DVLA, that to me is a red flag that says its not as simple as it appears.
To be fair, it does.
(I’ve texted said friend and asked the Q)
He said that the advice is always...
“If you KNOW that they are unfit to drive, and you KNOW that have ignored your diagnosis/advice, then go for it. No issues”
They wouldn't lose a job over it unless its a repeated pattern of behaviour or the boss is looking for an excuse to sack them.[b] Its a verbal warning level offense[/b]
Is it though? I repeat - we use the word optician pretty loosely. Are we talking about a sales assistant working in the shop attached to the opticians or an actual optician? If the former is it really any different to the assistant in the shoe shop telling your wife you bought such and such a pair in a size 9? I'm not sure it is. The fact that my right foot is a size 11 and my right eye is +1 D seem on a par in sensitivity to me.
FFS - I hope this is a troll.
Speeding
Littering
Close overtake
Red light jumping
Mobile phone usage whilst driving
No tax/MOT
Get all of these incidents reported and once you’ve finished, move on to inconsequential data protection breaches.
Do I need a medical power of attorney to pick up my wife's new glasses from the optician?
fanatic278 - Member
It ain’t the law. It’s your interpretation of the law. I am at best 50/50 sure your interpretation is correct
20/20 Shirley?
I am once again amazed how anyone, I mean even if they try really, really hard, could muster up enough of a monkeys about something like this to start a thread about it in the public domain.
Incredible.
I think I preferred pre-internet times when you didn't know there were so many odd folks knocking about 😀
tj and others- I thank you for what I believe to be sound and sensible advice.
I am not trolling. I am not outraged.
Look at it this way. Person 1 has information collected by opticians.
Person 2 has that information divulged to them by employee of said opticians. I honestly believe that this is not the way things should be. It matters not to whom the information was divulged (unless they hold some kind of power of attorney).
I do not intend to pursue this with the opticians.
[quote=tonyg2003 ]When It Comes To Data Protection. Wait Until You See The New GDPR Laws!
FTFY
Just because the STW collective does think this is a big deal, doesn't mean it isn't.
I work in pharmacy and we can't tell a relative if a patient has even been in the shop.
Bacon roll scenario above doesn't apply unless Alison is keeping the fact they have bacon rolls, on a computer or on paper file. If she does then that would be a breach of data protection
I am once again amazed how anyone, I mean even if they try really, really hard, could muster up enough of a monkeys about something like this to start a thread about it in the public domain.Incredible
Modern(ish) phenomenon
Or did he just do that thing that seems really popular these days ...and spot something (that had no effect on him at all) and realise it was something that technically he could complain about, and go for it !
fanatic278 - MemberIt ain’t the law. It’s your interpretation of the law. I am at best 50/50 sure your interpretation is correct.
NOpe - its the law quite clear to anyone who has looked at this. Note that the people who actually know a bit about this all agree with me. How much do you know about the data protection act? I have read it, read the guidance and had a the NMC censured for breaching it.
Why do you think its not the law? link / citation please
tonyg2003 - MemberMost people seem to be missing the point. There were no serious consequences here but unless the opticians look at their patient confidentiality systems there could be consequences in another case. It’s useful feedback to the clinicians to give them the chance to improve their SOP. I work in a very highly regulated and litigious clinical area and deal with this sort of stuff daily.
Presumably this conversation goes something like this:
Mrs A: "I'm not sure which lenses to buy, they seem quite expensive"
Staff: "oh, well XXX is what Mr A bought".
or
Mrs A: "Do you think I need the superthin lenses?"
Staff: "No, Mr A gets them as he's blind as a bat and they would be milk-bottle-bottoms otherwise".
Its not really any different to Mrs P going to the bike shop to buy some new tires, and the LBS suggesting she might want to get the super light ones because that's what I bought last week, or him saying that she could get thinner ones because she rides better and weighs less so is less likely to puncture.
You can probably get far more sensitive medical information about your wife from your GP's practice or local pharmacy without too much trouble! I agree technically it is a breach. I don't think I could bring myself to describe this as a serious breach. I'm wondering what would constitute a minor breach...
You know those times where it’s fairly obvious that a law is being used/applied by folk, outside of its original intent?
Like now...
I’m pretty sure that when it was drafted, wives finding out what sort of lenses their husbands had was not top of the agenda, it was probably more trifling things like stopping fraud, stalking or other abuse.
The majority of times I’ve heard about court cases over it, it’s been where a company has innocently missed a trick, even goaded into it, the complainant has realised/got what they wanted and exploited the situation.
OP, I don’t think you’ve mentioned the manner in which your deeply sensitive info was divulged? (Not suggesting foul play here)
Wife walk in and the sales person run straight up to her and proclaim ‘you’ll never guess what he’s gone and bought?!’?
Or was it simply a polite bit of small talk? Along the lines of
‘My hubs was here just the other day’
‘Oh really, what for?’
‘New glasses, you might remember him, Mr A?
‘Oh yes! He got some lovely sleek thin ones’
Edit: or what poly suggests...
What do you hope to achieve by raising the issue?
Remember there was some forumite that was keeping a list?
I'm beginning to see why.
Poly - most of your post I agree with but this
Its not really any different to Mrs P going to the bike shop to buy some new tires,
Is wrong because a bike shop does not have a duty of confidentiality
Remember there was some forumite that was keeping a list?
Was it a list of people who refer to something not everyone knows about, without saying what it actually is ?
Person 2 has that information divulged to them by employee of said opticians
What malicious act can this person now commit with the knowledge of the thickness of their arch enemies lenses?
What type of bullets needed for their sniper rifle to kill you through your eye?
