Jump to content

IOM DHSC & MANX CARE


Cassie2

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Investigation closed in November 2023. Incident made public in April 2024. Someone's got to query how long it took for the press release to be typed up - not me, I wouldn't do that kind of thing.

Another fine to pay for another data breach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Loads of people were working from home for a period of time, there will probably be loads of this kind of thing if you think about it. Not all of it nefarious. 

Maybe Trump could use that defence with all the National Secrets they found at his place.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Loads of people were working from home for a period of time, there will probably be loads of this kind of thing if you think about it. Not all of it nefarious. 

No.   This reason might work if all the records were for patients seen between 2020 and 2023 - and even then, they should have been returned to the office at the earliest opportunity.

But records relating to 2000 to 2014?   No, no - arguably they shouldn’t have been taken home at all, let alone retained there for a further nine years.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Loads of people were working from home for a period of time, there will probably be loads of this kind of thing if you think about it. Not all of it nefarious. 

It won't apply here though.  According to the press release, this relates to "patients seen between 2000 and 2014".  I suspect an ex-employee has moved or died and a load of old stuff been found.

What's interesting here is how poorly communicated all this has been - even though it's clear that a lot of extra information is widely known.  As well as contacting individuals affected, there needs to be a better explanation of what happened and whether patient care could have been affected.  Were the records found duplicate information or was information missing from files which could have affected care, for example.

No one would blame current management for the data breach (unless there's evidence they knew earlier and did nothing) but the way the response has been the usual "Everything is fine, nothing to see here" is depressing.  It might be acceptable to be this tight-lipped before the whole thing was investigated, but they've clearly had the time to do this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

No.   This reason might work if all the records were for patients seen between 2020 and 2023 - and even then, they should have been returned to the office at the earliest opportunity.

But records relating to 2000 to 2014?   No, no - arguably they shouldn’t have been taken home at all, let alone retained there for a further nine years.

 

Do we know which discipline or clinic the breach occurred from? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

I was aware that there used to be a hospital cormorant, but it had to be sold off after some junior doctors were caught rubbing linseed oil into it. 
 

(In my defence of this attempt at humour, having a hospital aviary is quite Pythonesque)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jarndyce said:

The MR article implies Community and Primary Care are investigating - so that general area, I suppose?

Possibly a district nurse who held on to some some papers/notes from their rounds?  It is not clear that it is full patient records. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, wrighty said:

(In my defence of this attempt at humour, having a hospital aviary is quite Pythonesque)

There aren't deceased parrots too? 

Edited by The Phantom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jarndyce said:

The MR article implies Community and Primary Care are investigating - so that general area, I suppose?

Family member today received an advisory letter from Manx Care saying their SALT files were discovered in the private dwelling. Maybe that's a clue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wrighty said:

Not really.  Over a month between typing and sending out is a bit disappointing.

so is this sarcasm upon sarcasm which is what  i assumed babydoc was aiming for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...