Professional Standards Review Organizations and Confidentiality: The Question of Public Access to Medical Peer Review Data Through the Freedom of Information Act

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Hastings
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-62
Author(s):  
Russell Ashmore ◽  
Neil Carver

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine what written information is given to informally admitted patients in England and Wales regarding their legal rights in relation to freedom of movement and treatment. Design/methodology/approach Information leaflets were obtained by a search of all National Health Service mental health trust websites in England and health boards in Wales and via a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request. Data were analysed using content analysis. Findings Of the 61 organisations providing inpatient care, 27 provided written information in the form of a leaflet. Six provided public access to the information leaflets via their website prior to admission. Although the majority of leaflets were accurate the breadth and depth of the information varied considerably. Despite a common legal background there was confusion and inconsistency in the use of the terms informal and voluntary as well as inconsistency regarding freedom of movement, the right to refuse treatment and discharge against medical advice. Research limitations/implications The research has demonstrated the value of Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests in obtaining data. Further research should explore the effectiveness of informing patients of their rights from their perspective. Practical implications Work should be undertaken to establish a consensus of good practice in this area. Information should be consistent, accurate and understandable. Originality/value This is the only research reporting on the availability and content of written information given to informal patients about their legal rights.


1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 303-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Öberg

There is without doubt a radical difference between the culture of open government in Sweden and the until recently prevailing culture of secrecy in Britain and within the European Union. From a classic British sceptic’s perspective, “public access to official documents is deemed unnecessary, since British democracy has functioned for so long without it”. The British “have always relied heavily, although not always successfully, on the concept of ‘ministerial responsibility’ to Parliament in order to secure public trust in government”. The mainstream of eighteenth-century British political thought held that the nation’s political well-being required the foundation of an informed gentleman citizenry. By the middle decades of the eighteenth-century, the movement away from the idea of a citizenry composed exclusively of gentlemen was firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. It became increasingly acknowledged that men of the “meaner sort” should have the right to hold opinions on public affairs and ought to be allowed to protest against governments and laws they deemed improper.


1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 303-328
Author(s):  
Ulf Öberg

There is without doubt a radical difference between the culture of open government in Sweden and the until recently prevailing culture of secrecy in Britain and within the European Union. From a classic British sceptic’s perspective, “public access to official documents is deemed unnecessary, since British democracy has functioned for so long without it”. The British “have always relied heavily, although not always successfully, on the concept of ‘ministerial responsibility’ to Parliament in order to secure public trust in government”. The mainstream of eighteenth-century British political thought held that the nation’s political well-being required the foundation of an informed gentleman citizenry. By the middle decades of the eighteenth-century, the movement away from the idea of a citizenry composed exclusively of gentlemen was firmly established on both sides of the Atlantic. It became increasingly acknowledged that men of the “meaner sort” should have the right to hold opinions on public affairs and ought to be allowed to protest against governments and laws they deemed improper.


2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Knott

The time when practice management was a small part of a practice principal’s daily routine has passed and the days of the small practice are numbered. It is not only a question of implementing the GDC’s professional standards but also of having to address legislation regulated by the Information Commissioner’s Office 1 (the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act among others) and, of course, the Care Quality Commission (CQC).


1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Stang ◽  
Janet L. Fox ◽  
Abraham G. Hartzema ◽  
Miquel S. Porta ◽  
Hugh H. Tilson

OBJECTIVE: To review some of the abuses and proper uses of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) spontaneous adverse-reaction reporting system, as a way of educating the reader to its strengths and limitations. DATA SOURCE: Published literature and reports based on information obtained from the FDA's database of spontaneous adverse drug-event reports. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Freedom of Information Act has increased public access to the FDA's database of spontaneous adverse drug reaction reports. As these reports are voluntarily received and reported to the FDA, their use for comparisons of drug safety is severely limited. Despite these limitations and the FDA's caveats for use of these data, consumer advocacy groups, researchers, and various pharmaceutical marketing groups have used this source to project the incidence of adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA's spontaneous adverse-event reporting system is designed to generate signals of unexpected adverse drug events. Use of the data gathered by this system to make drug safety comparisons is beyond their credible scope because many factors influence the reporting of adverse events. Researchers and peer reviewers should place these data in the proper perspective and support sound research into questions of drug safety.


Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron

Executive privilege (EP) as a political tool has created a grey area of constitutional power between the legislative and executive branches. By focusing on the post-WWII political usage of executive privilege, this research utilizes a social learning perspective to examine the power dynamics between Congress and the president when it comes to government secrecy and public information. Social learning provides the framework to understand how the Cold War's creation of the modern American security state led to a paradigm shift in the executive branch. This shift altered the politics of the presidency and impacted relations with Congress through extensive use of EP and denial of congressional requests for information. When viewed through a social learning lens, the institutional politics surrounding the development of the Freedom of Information Act is intricately entwined with EP as a political power struggle of action-reaction between the executive and legislative branches. Using extensive archival research, this historical analysis examines the politics surrounding the modern use of executive privilege from Truman through Nixon as an action-reaction of checks on power from the president and Congress, where each learns and responds based on the others previous actions. The use of executive privilege led to the Freedom of Information Act showing how policy can serve as a congressional check on executive power, and how the politics surrounding this issue influence contemporary politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document