Safeguarding

64 CHAPTER 8 INFORMATION
conjunction with the work on information sharing described in para 6.15 of Trust, assurance and
safety. There are sensitive issues about the nature of the information that might be stored and
about the balance to be struck between the need to protect patients and the human rights of health
professionals. For doctors, this work will link with the proposed implementation of the Shipman
Inquiry’s recommendation for a central database of clinical governance issues (see para 8.7 below)
and for the development of the role of the GMC affiliate described in Chapter 3 of Trust, assurance
and safety.
Information held centrally
Shipman Inquiry recommendation 40: There should be a central database containing
information about every doctor working in the UK. This should be accessible to the officers of
NHS bodies and to accredited employers in the private sector, as well as to other bodies with a
legitimate interest, such as the Healthcare Commission, the GMC, the NCAS and the DoH.
Recommendation 41: The database would contain, or provide links to, information held by
the GMC, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the NHS Counter Fraud and Security
Management Service. It would also contain records of disciplinary action by employers,
details of list management action by PCTs, any adverse reports following the investigation of
a complaint, any adverse findings by a Healthcare Commission panel or by the Healthcare
Ombudsman and details of any findings of negligence in a clinical negligence action and
settlement of a clinical negligence claim above a pre-determined level of damages. It should
also contain certain other information. Doctors would be able to access their own entries to
check the accuracy of the information held.
Recommendation 42: Private sector employers should be required to provide relevant
information as a condition of registration with the Healthcare Commission. Deputing services
should also be required to provide information and should be able to access the database
through the relevant PCT.
Recommendation 43: Information about unsubstantiated allegations or concerns should not be
included on the central database. Instead, the doctor’s entry on the database should be flagged
to indicate that confidential information is held by a named NHS body or by the CRB [Criminal
Records Bureau] or the GMC or the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service.
Questions of access to that information would depend on who was asking for it and for what
purpose and would have to be determined at a high level.
Kerr/Haslam Inquiry p31: PALS and complaints staff should be actively linked into a clinical
governance and information sharing network with regular access to data on performance
issues drawn from such things as claims, patient satisfaction surveys, audit and peer review.
Kerr/Haslam Inquiry p32: In line with the recommendations of the Shipman Inquiry, a centralised
database [should] be set up which is capable of recording a range of information about the
performance of individual doctors.
Kerr/Haslam Inquiry p33: The Department of Health should clearly state what information
can be included in relation to electronic staff records relating to complaints, proven/unproven
incidents, disciplinary investigations and findings. Such a record should be established in
standard form and, once established, should move with the individual to reduce the risk of staff
evading detection of past misdemeanours. The Department of Health should consider whether
or not, and if so how and in what circumstances, any such information should be transferable
between the NHS and the private sector.