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 – Member

It 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 – Member

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.

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?

s wrong because a bike shop does not have a duty of confidentiality

Does a glasses shop? Assuming it’s a separate entity to the optician, as alluded to previously.

Is wrong because a bike shop does not have a duty of confidentiality

I’d have better bikes if they did

for a tenner I used to print “wife receipts” to say your bike was whatever price you wants to tell her it was 😉

scotroutes – Member

Wow.

Must be the time of year.

Or Brexit.

Took eleven posts but yes, I hope you get syphilis.

A couple of days ago I went and bought a red woolly jumper from my wife and I’s favourite woolly jumper shop.

Today my wife went in to the same shop and asked for advice on jumpers. They told her I had bought a red jumper just 2 days ago so probably best not to buy red.

Bastids – I’m going to make sure that someone gets disciplined!

Took eleven posts but yes, I hope you get syphilis.
[/quote]
😆

Maintaining patient confidentiality is part of the optician and optometrist professional obligations.

It’s also sensitive medical data under data protection law.

For those that can’t grasp this, where do you draw the line:

“Rod’s prescription is +8”
“Jane’s eye test shows she’s likely to have diabetes”
“Freddy’s eye test shows he has cancer”
“George wants contact lenses to make him more attractive to Wendy, don’t tell his wife”

Was it a list of people who refer to something not everyone knows about, without saying what it actually is ?
[/quote]
This one!!

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/miles-and-miles-of-files-pretty-files-you-were-being-watched-content

Maintaining patient confidentiality is part of the optician and optometrist professional obligations.

We are still unclear about who spilled the beans as to whether the OP was a patient of an optician, or a customer in a glasses shop.

For those that can’t grasp this, where do you draw the line:

Just in front of

“Rod’s prescription is +8”

As before that it’s not medically relevant. The thickness of someone’s lenses is a fashion choice, no? Hence the ops desire to have the thinnest possible?

Is wrong because a bike shop does not have a duty of confidentiality

but if they keep their records in a structured way are bound by exactly the same DPA (and therefore does have a duty!). The refractive index or brand of your lenses is not medical information or part of the medical record so is no different from say the colour of frame.

It’s also sensitive medical data under data protection law.

Its not! The DPA clearly defines “sensitive personal data” [it doesn’t have a medical data definition]. It would only be sensitive personal data if it met one of the tests such as being about “(e) his physical or mental health or condition,” The brand of lenses wouldn’t meet that test.

Wow.

Must be the time of year.

Or Brexit.

Yep – Brexit.

Now as I am sure you know Brexit has not happened yet so by default we can only blame Thatcher for this outrage…

In other circumstances, you should not disclose any clinical, personal or non-clinical information about a patient to a third party, even if that person says they are family or a close friend. This is because it might harm the patient if you divulge the information, for example, if the patient is a victim of abuse. This includes the patient’s:

This is very relevant. Husband has told wife that they bought the cheapest glasses as abusive wife had told him not to spend too much. She now finds out that he bought very thin (and therefore more expensive lenses) which leads to more abuse.
Clearly this could happen if he had purchased a bike that was more expensive that he said it was but there are no laws around that.

Husband has told wife that they bought the cheapest glasses as abusive wife had told him not to spend too much. She now finds out by looking at him that he bought very thin (and therefore more expensive lenses) which leads to more abuse.

Makes you think…

Poly – sorry – muddled terminology from me

there are two different issues being muddled up here – Data protection act and duty to keep medical information safe.

So the bike shop has the same duties under the data protection act but does not have the need for confidentiality of medical information

Sorry people who think this is a minor issue you are wrong – it is sensitive data under the current DPA. The shop assistant was not in a position to know what material damage could occur to the individual. They should have strict confidentiality in place. If data protection laws are not important to then crack on…

As before that it’s not medically relevant. The thickness of someone’s lenses is a fashion choice, no?

No. In my particular case the lens in the left eye is chosen to hide the fact that I have keracatonus in that eye.

Or, to extend the argument, how is choice of lens different to choice of prosthetic limb? Both are adjustments to correct physical deficiency. Fairly sure most would argue that someone with a flesh coloured life-like limb wouldn’t necessarily be happy with it being a topic of general discussion.

I’m genuinely surprised by this thread. I can see now why Google thinks it can get away with slurping the entire NHS clinical database.

You could’ve avoided this entire scenario by only ever wearing your glasses when nobody else is around. That way the lense type is protected from prying eyes.That’s what I do. Keep it secret, keep it safe.

You could’ve avoided this entire scenario by only ever wearing your glasses when nobody else is around. That way the lense type is protected from prying eyes.That’s what I do. Keep it secret, keep it safe.

Superb 🙂

That should be a Viz top tip!

work in pharmacy and we can’t tell a relative if a patient has even been in the shop.

But when you go to collect a prescription whether it’s for you or anyone else, the patient’s name and address and the fact they have a prescription is shouted out for the whole shop to hear!

No. In my particular case the lens in the left eye is chosen to hide the fact that I have keracatonus in that eye.

But if there were two options that performed exactly the same, undisclosed, function and one was thinner than the other, for aesthetics, is that medically relevant? To simplify, does it matter (medically) if a sticking plaster is red or green?

Poly – sorry – muddled terminology from me

there are two different issues being muddled up here – Data protection act and duty to keep medical information safe.

So the bike shop has the same duties under the data protection act but does not have the need for confidentiality of medical information
Indeed but the question is, are the brand/refractive index of your lenses medical information? Presumably the frames aren’t – but if they had said, “oh you know those are the same frames your husband has ordered – do you want to be matching” would we be having a debate about medical confidentiality?

Oldman – can you explain using the actual definitions how the brand or refractive index of the lens is SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA? Not just PERSONAL DATA in the DPA?

Aja, and that attitude is why people shrug their shoulders and say “just let google have it, I can’t be bothered with the inconvenience it causes in the rest of my life”. I’m not saying the optician was technically in the right, yes there is some theoretical risk this could have caused trouble in an abusive relationship (but then so could them saying nothing, “why is the optician keeping secrets, you must be up to something!”). But in the grand scheme of data breaches are you saying this was at the top of the scale? I’m just trying to work out what you would consider to be a fairly minor / trivial breach? In my view a “serious” breach would be one that meets the test for informing the ICO in a post GDPR world.

It would only be sensitive personal data if it met one of the tests such as being about “(e) his physical or mental health or condition

… Which it does because:

(a) it identifies a physical condition
(b) it gives an indication of the seriousness of that condition because some brands are only available in some strengths

The page you quote from, if you’d have done the full quote, goes on to say:

“The categories of sensitive personal data are broadly drawn so that, for example, information that someone has a broken leg is classed as sensitive personal data, even though such information is relatively matter of fact and obvious to anyone seeing the individual concerned with their leg in plaster and using crutches. Clearly, details about an individual’s mental health, for example, are generally much more “sensitive” than whether they have a broken leg.”

I’m doing this for a job at the moment so I get quite expensive legal advice for free. “Needs glasses” and “blood group O-” are also sensitive data for the purposes of DPA and GDPR.

For whoever it was saying that this is a misapplication of the law, that’s unlikely because the law was specifically drafted to include the above (subject to caveats around Mrs T being forced into the law in the first place).

I suspect that one issue is that the cost of lenses is also proportional to how thin they are for a stronger prescriptions so the OP’s wife knew he maybe spent a lot of money on some lenses when she previously didn’t?

It appears the same rules of client confidentiality extend to the world of foundation garments

I think I am going to use this thread for staff training. So much misunderstanding.

Did your wife not already know that you wore glasses, just out of curiosity?

So you’re going to potentially risk someone’s job, or at least get them into some sort of grief at work because they told your own wife about a type of lense you use, presumably as a way of recommendation of type of lense? Your own wife, a type of lense, not your sexual disease history or criminal record!

You really are causing unnecessary trouble for someone here and you’d better hope it doesnt catch up with you. You’ll never be able to use that place again for sure! This is such pettiness.

I think I am going to use this thread for staff training. So much misunderstanding

great minds, I am as well.

vickypea – Member – Block User – Quote

But when you go to collect a prescription whether it’s for you or anyone else, the patient’s name and address and the fact they have a prescription is shouted out for the whole shop to hear!

Indeed. Imagine how I felt when they shouted “Mr. Darcy, your sildenafil is ready.” and then remarked “Oooh, that’s a strong dose” as she re-checked the label. 😳

What’s sildenafil DD? Been to Phuket recently?