World Menopause Day: Signs, symptoms and stats

Sunday 18th October is World Menopause Day. To raise awareness about the menopause, Audit and Compliance Executive, Jen Corcoran writes about what it is and the effects it has.

What is ‘The Menopause’?

The menopause is known colloquially as ‘the change’, or ‘the change of life’. Etymologically it literally means the “end of monthly cycles”.

The NHS website lists the menopause as a condition and offers the simple explanation that the menopause is “when a woman stops having periods and is no longer able to get pregnant naturally”.

Biologically speaking it is caused by a natural decline in the hormone oestrogen and the usual age for this to occur is between 45 and 55 years of age. The NHS suggest that ‘around 1 in 100 women experience the menopause before the age of 40’, which is known as premature menopause.

It either occurs through a natural process of ageing or can be a ‘surgical menopause’ if you require radical treatment for gynaecological issues.

What are the symptoms of the menopause?

The more commonly known symptoms include:

  • Hot Flushes – literally a wave of heat throughout the body as the adjusting hormone levels fail to regulate temperature. Hot flushes can be triggered by things like spicy food, caffeine, medical conditions or stress, but often occur without warning;
  • Night Sweats – another result of the body’s internal temperature control not working, some people going through the menopause experience such a change in temperature that sweat soaks their nightclothes and bedding, even if the room is cool;
  • Vaginal Dryness – the affected hormones are responsible for the vagina’s natural lubrication, and as such, the drop in hormones can reduce lubrication. This in turn can lead to general discomfort, discomfort or pain during intercourse, increased frequency of urination and higher risk of urinary tract infections;
  • Reduced Libido – hormones can also be responsible for sex drive, and this can be impacted during the menopause;
  • Low Mood or Anxiety – it is not always easy to identify the correlation with mental and physical health as they are interlinked, but many have reported a drop in their mood as well as other symptoms.

It is important to note that these symptoms do not always mean you are beginning to go through the menopause, as there are many other conditions and external factors that could also be at fault. But if you do have any of these symptoms and they trouble you, it is sensible to see your GP.

There are a great many more symptoms as every person is different and our bodies are wonderfully complex. On her website megsmenopause.com, Meg Mathews identifies 34 symptoms of the menopause ranging from the physical symptoms above, to psychological symptoms, physical changes and pain.

How is the menopause diagnosed?

Your GP can arrange a blood test to measure hormone levels and this is carried out alongside the monitoring of your symptoms. The absence of the menstrual period for a year can lead to a diagnosis of the menopause. However, as some hormonal contraceptives also cause menstruation to stop, other factors need to be considered, such as the other symptoms mentioned above.

How long does the menopause last?

The symptoms and length of transition vary from person to person.

The earlier stages are known as ‘peri-menopause’ and the average length of time from the initial symptoms to the final stages – where the monthly periods stop completely – is four years. However, this can last as long as ten years for some.

Factors that affect the duration are your body type, family history and lifestyle, as well as how quickly the symptoms are detected and attributed to the menopause.

Remember that until the menopause is complete, you can still conceive so do not mistake the early signs for an end to fertility. Whilst it is statistically harder to get pregnant later in your reproductive life, it is not impossible!

Is there any treatment for the menopause?

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) is a treatment that can offer a low dose of the hormones that are depleting.

The hormones in HRT are oestrogen and progestogen, and can be taken as tablets, applied as patches or gel to the skin, or a vaginal cream, pessary or ring.

There are many myths about HRT so it is important to discuss it with your GP, as everyone is different and may have different requirements.

Where can I go for more information?

Menopause Matters is a website founded by gynaecologist Dr Heather Currie. It started as a print magazine before moving online, and features clinician contributions about all aspects of the menopause and up to date information and research.

Three years ago, Meg Mathews launched her website Megs Menopause. She is possibly best known as a high profile PR and event planner from the late nineties who was married to Oasis front man Noel Gallagher.

Meg turned 50 in 2016 and began to experience symptoms of the menopause but was shocked by the lack of understanding and support so made it her mission to empower women through honest and frank discussions. The website has a host of articles including discussions around symptoms, lifestyle and the impact of the menopause on transgender men and women.

Meg is listed as one of the champions on new website gen-m.com. The site claims to have the best of the menopause all in one place and is ‘on a mission to make the menopause better today than it was yesterday’. The brand has social media presence across various channels and brings together the latest news and conversations about the topic of menopause.

Key Takeaways

  • Know the symptoms & dilute the taboo – read up on the menopause, talk to family and friends about their experiences
  • Know your body & trust yourself – what is right/normal for you? If you are concerned then visit your GP. If your GP is not receptive, get a second opinion.

Statistics

  • Average age of menopause – 45-55
  • 40-45 is early menopause, below 40 is premature menopause
  • At least 34 symptoms have been identified
  • Average time from first symptoms to final stage = 4 years
  • You can still conceive during peri-menopause
  • Everybody has a different experience, but nobody is alone

Sources

 

Two Notable Black British Individuals

This October, Fletchers Solicitors is celebrating Black History Month by highlighting influential Black people who have helped shape the world we live in today. We’ve assigned a cross-departmental team across all specialisms at Fletchers, so that we can do our own research and continually educate ourselves on Black history.

The fourth blog in this series is a piece researched and written by Nermeen Salahuddin, Assistant Litigation Executive.

Christian Frederick Cole | The first Black barrister

Christian Frederick Cole was the grandson of a slave, and the adopted son of Reverend James Cole of Waterloo. In 1873 he enrolled at Oxford University as a non-collegiate student with the Delegacy of Unattached Students. This meant that although he was educated at the university, he was not attached, affiliated or sponsored by the University due to his race. Thus, becoming the University’s first Black African man to study there.
In order to pay his way through university, Cole taught Responsions; a qualifying exam in Greek, Latin, arithmetic and algebra. He also taught music lessons, and both of these classes were extremely popular.

Although Cole had many financial difficulties and did not have the advantage of being attached to a college, he graduated in 1876 with a fourth-class honours’ degree. In November 1876 he was accepted as a member of University College until April 1880.

Negative Attention

As one of the first Black people to attend the University, Cole’s presence attracted a lot of media attention. Oftentimes this attention was extremely racist; such as press cartoons depicting him with racial stereotypes. Despite this, Cole took a very visible role in the life of the college; including speaking at the university’s union. He was also a member of Oxford Union debating society. As his popularity grew, those close to him named him ‘King Cole’; celebrating his rich background, sense of community and natural ability to command a conversation.

A Plaque of Honour

Following his graduation in 1880 and time in Sierra Leone, Cole returned to England to train as a barrister. He was accepted by the prestigious Inner Temple in 1883, thus becoming the first Black African practising in English courts. Cole later secured a role as a barrister at the consular court of Sayyid Barghash bin Said Al-Busaid in Zanzibar.

In October 2017, Oxford University unveiled a plaque in honour of Cole on University College’s exterior wall, in Logic Lane, opposite the college’s law library.

Watch

Christian Frederick Cole – Black Oxford Untold Stories;

Lilian Bader | One of the first Black women in the British armed forces

Lilian Bader was born on 18th February 1918 in Liverpool, England to a British born mother and Marcus Bailey; a merchant seaman from Barbados who served in the First World War. At 9 years old she was orphaned and placed in a convent until she reached the age of 20.

Due to her racial background, Bader found it extremely difficult to find employment. She herself stated ‘my casting out from the convent walls was delayed. I was half West Indian, and nobody, not even the priests, dare risk ridicule by employing me’.

Dismissed from the Forces

During the Second World War in 1939, Bader enlisted in the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes at Catterick Camp, Yorkshire. Unfortunately, she was dismissed after only 7 weeks when it was discovered that her father was not born in the United Kingdom.

In 1941, Bader listed in the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force after hearing a radio advertisement that the Royal Air Force were taking on people with a West Indian descent. She went on to train in instrument repair; which in itself was a new trade for women to undertake, only made available to them in 1940.

A Worthy Promotion

Despite being the only person of colour ‘in a sea of white faces’ Bader took great pride in her position commenting herself ‘someone told me I looked smart in my uniform, which cheered me no end. Bader became a Leading Aircraft Woman, where she worked long hours checking for any faults in the instruments of the aircrafts. She was later promoted to the rank of Corporal.

The Development of Women

When Bader became pregnant with her first son, she was provided with compassionate discharge from her position in February 1944. After the war, she went on to obtain a Bachelor of Arts Degree from London University and had a career as a teacher until the 1980s.

In 2018, The Voice newspaper listed Lilian Bader as one of eight Black women who ‘contributed to the development of women’.

Medical Manslaughter

On 6th February 2018, Jeremy Hunt announce a rapid review into the application of the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) to healthcare professionals. This flowed from the general outcry into the conviction of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba a specialist registrar into the 6th year of her postgraduate training, who was held to be responsible for the death of a six year old boy, Jack Adcock, whilst under her care.

The tragic circumstances of Jack Adock’s death highlighted a number of systemic failings in the management of his care , with not all the responsibility of Dr Bawa-Garba.  On 4th November 2015 Dr Bawa-Garba was convicted of manslaughter   on the grounds of gross negligence and suspended for two years.

Dr Bawa Garba appealed the decision but this was refused in December 2016. In light of her conviction the GMC, the professional regulatory body for doctors, applied to have Dr Bawa-Garba removed from the medical register, effectively overturning the decision of the MPTS (Medical Practitioners Tribunal service) that Dr Bawa-Garba was otherwise fit to practice. One of the GMC’s expressed aims was to seek confirmation that a doctor with a criminal conviction for manslaughter could not continue to practice. This was confirmed by the High Court on 25th January 2018 and Dr Bawa-Garba, a doctor with a previously unblemished record, removed from practice.  She has lodged an appeal against the High Court decision and has raised over £360,000 from a crowdfunding site to support this.

Since that decision, significant concerns have been raised over the criminal prosecution of healthcare professionals in the English courts for the offence of gross negligent manslaughter (GNM).

Whilst the rapid review response is still awaited, the Medical Protection Society announced on 13 March 2018 that now was a time to reconsider whether the general application of criminal law should be modified in the context of healthcare providers.

At present the UK law on GNM is based on three tests:

  1. The Defendant owed a duty of care to the victim
  2. There was a breach of duty
  3. The breach of duty caused death
  4. The breach was “grossly” negligent.

To determine what is meant by “grossly” the Courts have indicated that the  conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s opinion to a crime.

The law requires no finding that the Defendant intended to cause harm or had any form of criminal intent.

By contrast, in Scotland, there is no law of gross negligent manslaughter. The nearest equivalent is the offence of involuntary culpable homicide.  This offence is where there is no intent to commit murder but either there is a wicked recklessness or gross carelessness such that the circumstances in which death was caused make it culpable homicide.

The Medical Protection Society (MPS), has proposed that the law in England and Wales move towards the legal test for culpable homicide in Scotland, as they believe that this is better suited to determining the culpability of a doctor in a patient’s death.

They are also proposing that “the director of public prosecution authorises all GNM prosecutions involving healthcare professionals. This, as in Scotland, would ensure that the vital question of whether public interest is served by a prosecution is considered.

The MPS proposal is to be commended as a possible solution. However,  from a patient’s perspective, there will be concerns that there has not been a single successful prosecution against a doctor under the law of culpable homicide in Scotland. To some, this indicates that the Scottish approach is too lenient.

As a law firm committed to championing patient’s rights and representing Claimants we are intrinsically aligned with the families of he bereaved and understand and support their passionate drive for justice. However, we also recognise that otherwise good doctors can make mistakes, particularly in a health system which is far from being without fault.

A distinction needs to be drawn between treatment in those circumstances and where a doctor intentionally or repeatedly treats a patient in a negligent manner. It is vital that the law protects patients from the rogue or cavalier doctor who wilfully neglects his or her patient’s needs but past scandals such as Dr Shipman and Ian Patterson would still have been dealt with under alternate criminal laws without the need to rely upon GNM.

In the context of a single innocent mistake where the intention was to do no harm is it in society’s interests to imbue those actions with the hue of a criminal? Is it preferable to have a starting point where we assume that a doctor’s motivation is benign and work down from there?

In our view, we support the MPS’s call for a review of the current law and how it applies to doctors and other healthcare providers.  The rapid review should consider if there should be a softening of the law in England and Wales to align more closely with the Scottish system.  Any system must ensure that grossly negligent actions are punished but that due consideration to the motivation, and intent behind the act must be accounted for.  We are of the view that it is not in society’s interests to criminalise the medical profession unnecessarily as this will serve to undermine its position and encourage a loss of faith.

Mother of two secures £7,500 settlement after experiencing avoidable post-caesarean pain

A mother of two suffered with avoidable and prolonged abdominal pain after products were retained following a Caesarean section.

The 26 year old was admitted to Epsom General Hospital in November 2017 to undergo an elective category 3 Caesarean section under spinal anaesthetic for her second child, due to a failed induction.

Her baby was delivered with forceps and the placenta and membranes were noted to have been checked and the cavity was noted to have been checked twice.

Postnatal observations were noted to be within the normal limits and the Claimant and her new-born baby were discharged on 10 November 2017.

Following her discharge from hospital, the Claimant began bleeding heavily and experiencing severe abdominal pain which she thought was normal following a Caesarean section.

On 21 December 2017, the Claimant attended Green Oak Children’s Centre for her son’s six week check-up. She informed the midwife of her ongoing bleeding and pain and she was advised to attend A&E.

On the same day, the Claimant called 111 and explained her concerns and again was advised to attend A&E so she went to St Helier Hospital.

Blood tests were taken and as a result, she was referred to a gynaecologist for a review. The gynaecologist was of the view that the Claimant was suffering with endometriosis or retained products of conception. They arranged for an ultrasound scan to rule out the latter and this took place the following day.

When the woman was scanned, it showed retained products. It was arranged for the Claimant to undergo evacuation of retained product and she was prescribed oral antibiotics.

On 3 January 2018, the Claimant returned to St Helier Hospital to undergo the evacuation of retained products under general anaesthetic. She was discharged the same day with oral antibiotics.

The Claimant contacted Fletchers Solicitors who were able to secure a settlement of £7,500 from Epsom and St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust. She had suffered with avoidable and prolonged abdominal pain and bleeding and then had to undergo the evacuation of retained products.

Stephanie Davies, Litigation Executive in the Medical Negligence Team at Fletchers Solicitors, said: “I hope the compensation that the Claimant has received will go towards helping her move forward from this ordeal and go towards spending quality time with her son that she had missed out on. This case highlights the importance of robust checks following child birth.”

‘Never events’ in dentistry

Written by Hannah Ashcroft, medical negligence solicitor at Fletchers. 

Medical negligence lawyers have long been familiar with the concept of ‘never events’, namely incidents that simply should not occur but for the care delivered falling below the standard of a responsible medical practitioner. Medical never events have been agreed and published by the NHS for years; examples include surgery on the wrong site, scalding of patients and retention of foreign objects following a procedure. In such cases there is rarely a dispute over breach of duty, which allows us as Claimant lawyers to work with the Defendant NHS Trusts to achieve a resolution for injured patients as quickly as possible.

Until recently there had been no such agreement or consensus on ‘never events’ in dentistry. Consequently, dental claims have often been unnecessarily prolonged by arguments over liability which has led to increased costs and avoidable delays in compensating the injured party. This can have a huge impact on Claimants as dental negligence often results in a requirement for private dental treatment to be undertaken. Private dental treatment is a cost which many injured Claimants are unable to fund themselves and are therefore dependent upon liability being resolved and compensation being recovered to allow them to undergo the necessary treatment and move on with their lives.

The British Dental Journal has recently published an article identifying 15 never events in dentistry based on international expert consensus.

The 15 never events identified are as follows

  1. Breaking the patient’s jaw
  2. Pulling out the wrong tooth
  3. Treating the wrong patient
  4. Injecting the wrong anaesthetic
  5. Injuring the patient’s eye, due to the omission of appropriate eye protection
  6. Leaving foreign objects behind in the patient after surgical procedures
  7. Inhalation by patient of ‘foreign objects’
  8. Failing to sterilise instruments
  9. Failure to register patient’s history of allergies to medication
  10. Use of dental material in a patient with known history of allergy to the dental material used
  11. Prescription of a drug to a patient with a known allergy to the drug
  12. Reusing disposable items instead of throwing them away
  13. Failure to refer for oral cancer assessment after patient’s lesions do not heal after 2 weeks of receiving treatment
  14. Failure to implement oral cancer screening as part of the routine assessments
  15. Prescribing incorrect medication to children

I am pleased that the dentistry industry has now recognised the need for industry wide standards and consistent approaches which I trust will improve patient care. I hope that this not only leads to a reduction in ‘never event’ incidents taking place, but also that the list enables claims arising out of such incidents to be resolved much quicker and at a more proportionate cost than they currently are.

New GBS patient information leaflet a step closer

We are delighted to report that the patient information leaflet on Group B Strep, which has been prepared jointly by the Group B Strep Support Group and the Royal College of Obstetricians, has moved a step closer to becoming a reality.

The leaflet was been submitted for peer review late last week and once finalised will result in an change to the RCOG guidelines to ensure that it is provided to every pregnant woman in the NHS, and ensure that all mothers are fully informed of the risks and treatment options.

Further information on the leaflet and GBS in general can be found via the GBS Support Group website: https://gbss.org.uk/latest-news/gbspatientinformation/

Fletchers Solicitors have partnered with the Group B Strep Support group for 2017/18 and know that only hard work and persistence has pushed this leaflet through, we congratulate the whole team for their efforts.

NHS England announces ‘pause’ on use of controversial vaginal mesh implants

[lead]An independent review had lead to the decision for the use of vaginal mesh implants to the pause.[/lead]

Christian Beadell, a senior solicitor solicitor at Fletchers, commented on the news: “This decisive action from Baroness Cumberlege must be welcomed by both the medical profession and the thousands of women who have suffered from the use of vaginal mesh implants to treat stress urinary incontinence.

While not going so far as a ban, the decision to now pause the use of mesh implants such as TVT and TOT until certain steps are taken to mitigate the risks of complications is a balanced approach which also recognises that many woman have had positive outcomes from the use of these devices.

It is vital that from here on, all the agencies, including the Medicine Healthcare Regulatory Authority continue to work together to ensure that the relative risks and merits of these procedures, including pelvic organ prolapse repair, are thoroughly considered.

The use of mesh implants has dramatically reduced in recent years with the growing awareness of the high complication rates and surgeons have started to accept that mesh is not the panacea that it was once thought to be.

The absence of an outright ban means that it is likely that private surgeons could still use mesh, but that in an NHS setting its use will be extremely limited and possibly non-existent.

What is important, however, is that patient autonomy is preserved so that women who have exhausted more-traditional surgical options and are prepared to accept the risks of a mesh repair are able to do so, in a safe environment with an appropriately-qualified surgeon.”

Read more about the news here. 

NHS Resolution report findings will improve future of fetal monitoring

In response to the NHS Resolution’s first report, Fletcher’s Medical Negligence Solicitor, Andrew Hesketh hopes the findings will improve fetal monitoring.

As well as the need to build stronger neonatal services, the report details six recommendations to support clinical issues identified over the last 12 months by NHSR.

The report confirms that within the cases explored, 70% identified issues with fetal monitoring.

Furthermore, the third recommendation specifically refers to a need to improve fetal monitoring. The advice is that research in this area should be prioritised urgently.

Andrew, who has 17 years’ experience of dealing with sensitive case work, recognises the challenges for lawyers in holding such failings to account.

Regrettably, I have experience dealing with families have lost their new born child after only a few hours, of life. This is because of errors and avoidable issues with fetal monitoring during, and immediately prior to the onset of, labour.

Because of that, Andrew welcomes future recommendations to address this trend:

It is encouraging that such issues are being acknowledged and recommendations made to address these issues.

Earlier this year, Andrew worked closely with a young couple who lost their baby boy just weeks after birth.

It was concluded that the cause of death was from severe brain damage, Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy, which occurs when an infant’s brain doesn’t receive enough oxygen and blood.

The medical experts instructed to determine liability reported the CTG traces following the mother’s admission to Hospital, and in particular on the day of her admission, were not as reassuring as the Trust suggested and recorded in their notes.

In conclusion to the case, Andrew said.

This case was as much about providing answers and helping the parents to come to terms with what had happened, as it was about getting some form of justice for their son.

Alongside Andrew, Fletcher’s Director of Medical Negligence Serious Injury, Mark Tempest is hopeful the findings result in a brighter future:

We welcome the findings of this report as a very positive step on behalf of NHS Resolution. We have long sought an initiative like this. As lawyers representing the injured parties, we have in the past found it difficult to get the meaningful discussions started with NHS in the early stages of these complex cases. We fully support the initiative described in this report and would like to see it extended as far as possible.

Lawyers representing claimants can also do better by making sure that we notify the NHS at an early stage

GBS Claims – Investigations and the importance of experts

We previously commented on the initial steps in commencing a legal claim specific to claims involving Group B Strep infection and the considerations at the very earliest stages.

From the lawyer’s perspective, giving an accurate assessment of the merits of a claim at the outset can be difficult.   As with any claim for clinical negligence we need to identify where treatment has fallen below a reasonable standard (i.e a breach of the duty of care) and that this has caused or materially contributed to an injury.  There is therefore a threefold requirement of establishing breach ,  causation and injury. Without all three components, a claim will fail.

The initial instructions may not in themselves, clarify those issues and the lawyer’s role is often to provide the answers that the parents have been denied.  It may not be possible to identify where a breach  of duty has occurred and a hospital’s own inveownstigation may itself be inconclusive.

To that end once the appropriate medical records have been obtained, the choice and instruction of the correct experts is crucial.

By way of example, consider the case of a baby who died from GBS sepsis a few days after birth.  The parent’s initial concerns were that whilst GBS infection had been noted early in the pregnancy and it had been intended to administer intravenous Antibiotics at the time of the labour, this had not been done.

Whilst there appeared to be a breach of duty in failing to administer antibiotics, the very  poor condition that the baby was born in raised a concern that the infection itself may have been well established and the baby may not have survived in any event. Antibiotics do not have an immediate effect and if this is not in sufficient time to prevent sepsis then we would not be able to establish sepsis.

To consider breach, an obstetrician and gynaecologist was instructed to assess the management of the pregnancy and labour.  In his report, he identified a criticism that neither the hospital or the parents had considered which was that in an attempt to induce labour an excessive number of stretch and sweeps had been performed.

A stretch and sweep is a process whereby a gloved finger is inserted into the cervix in an attempt to separate the amniotic sac membranes from the lower part of the uterus. This action can trigger the release of hormones and can start labour and is a routine procedure but, in our client’s case this was unsuccessful.

In a patient with known GBS colonisation, there is a theoretical risk that a stretch and sweep can introduce GBS into the uterus from the vagina and infect the fetus. For a single sweep this risk is acceptable in the interests of prompting labour, however in the context of multiple sweeps, it is not, particularly where there are alternative methods of prompting labour which do not carry such a risk i.e. prostaglandin gel.

A further report was obtained from  a microbiologist who confirmed that the infection was transmitted to the fetus before birth , probably from the unnecessary , additional stretch and sweeps.

In such circumstances we were able to establish that there had been a breach of duty and that without the breach of duty, the infection which ultimately led to the babies death was avoidable.

It is therefore important to consider all aspects of the management both before, during and after the labour and not to focus on what may be the initial concerns.  Claims for medical negligence often evolve as the case progresses and with cases involving infection, where there may be underlying and unrecognised processes afoot, careful expert instruction and an open mind are crucial.

GDPR: The Final Countdown

gemma-robertsWritten by Gemma Dixon, EL/PL Litigation Executive at Fletchers. 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force tomorrow, on 25th May 2018.

Up until 25th May 2018, the data protection rules are governed under the Data Protection Act 1998, linked to the Data Protection Directive 1995. These rules were created to protect data held on computers and in paper filing systems.

Under the 1998 Act, an organisation could be fined up to £500,000 for a breach. From 25th May 2018, data protection rules will be overhauled with new legislation, known as GDPR. 

The aim of the changes is to strengthen the protection of data in modern society, to be more transparent to members of the public, and to give individuals a right to control their data.

The main difference in the new legislation is that fines for breaches have dramatically increased. Penalties will be tiered dependant on the seriousness of the breach but they can be any sum up to 4% of the annual global turnover or €20 million (whichever is greater). 

An individuals’ rights are now specifically listed as follows:

  • Right to be informed
  • Right to access
  • Right to ratification
  • Right to erasure
  • Right to restrict processing
  • Right to restrict portability
  • Right to object
  • Rights related to automated decision making, including profiling

Individuals will now have a right to ask companies to remove the data from their systems. However, certain companies should keep at least basic data to avoid any duplication in the future.

It will now be mandatory for a Data Protection Officer to be appointed and all breaches must be reported within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach.

Whilst law firms and other companies will be swatting up on GDPR, it is not as easy for members of the public to understand. With this in mind, a website has been set up to briefly explain GDPR to members of the public: https://www.eugdpr.org/

Individuals will notice that they have received quite a few emails recently, some probably from companies that they did not even know held their details. If the emails are from a company that a person did not know they signed up to, or they no longer want to be registered with them, they can ask for their personal data to be removed/wiped. This is the right to erasure.

In short, an individual has a right to ask to be forgotten. With technology evolving as quickly as it does, even if an individual is forgotten, I doubt it would be long before they somehow find themselves found again.  A lot of individuals do not realise that certain activities (e.g. posting a status on Facebook or entering a competition) automatically put you in the public domain. GDPR is meant to make these activities, and the permissions that you are giving, more transparent.

The issue of data protection was recently in the news when it was discovered that Facebook was failing to monitor Cambridge Analytica and allowed them to collect and harvest data from Facebook profiles without the individual users’ knowledge.  When the news broke, the UK and USA Government promised to investigate this breach and also called for Facebook to be more regulated.

Another example of a data breach involved two individuals from an organisation who made several serious errors whilst travelling on a train.  First of all, they both had their business laptops open and visible to passengers on the train.  Secondly, they took business calls whilst on the train.  Thirdly, they left their chairs to visit the buffet/bar and left their laptops open for anybody to hack in to.  These actions all resulted in a particular passenger being able to identify the names of the members of staff, where they worked, the deal that they were negotiating, financial records and negotiation deals to name a few. Such actions could have resulted in a major hacking scam, but luckily the individual who witnessed all of this was not a hacker and did not snoop on the laptop. Further information on this example can be found here. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/overheard-on-a-train-how-i-could-have-ransomed-a-law-firm

As the previous legislation was from the 1998 Act and 1995 Directive, it is understandable that technology and social media have taken a large leap forward since 1998 and so it is only right that an update was needed.  Most records/data are now computerised, whereas, in 1998, a lot of data was paper-based.

Whilst the UK may be exiting the EU, the new EU data protection laws, for the time being, will still be applicable in the UK from 25th May 2018.

I believe there is a grey area with GDPR is in relation to obtaining medical records. It is my understanding that the GDPR states that an individual can obtain their own medical records and should not be charged. However, it is unclear if this extends to solicitors firms and other organisations obtaining such documents. Whether it refers to individuals only or not, I believe it would create a financial loss for GP surgeries and other medical institutions. 

To summarise, the GDPR is coming in to force on 25th May 2018 and nobody can hide from it.  It will affect all individuals and organisations.  It will probably have teething problems and create confusion, particularly for members of the public, for the first few months.  But I am sure that it will be easier to understand. GDPR is not foolproof and there will still be breaches. 

GP Practice taken over by Virgin Care goes from outstanding to inadequate in 18 months

[lead]Essex GP practice taken over by Virgin Care is placed in Special Measures after going from outstanding to inadequate in under 2 years.[/lead]

GPonline reports today that the healthcare regulator for England, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated the Sutherland Lodge GP practice in Chelmsford, Essex inadequate (the lowest available rating) only around 20 months after awarding an outstanding rating.

Sutherland Lodge practice was taken over by the private provider, Virgin Care, in July 2016. At the time of the takeover, the practice was rated outstanding, an achievement only reached by around 4% of GP practices throughout England.

The latest inspection report, published on 14th May 2018, by the CQC reveals that the surgery is now rated inadequate overall. The report is based upon an inspection that was carried out on 7th December 2017, a mere 18 months after Virgin Care took over the running of the practice. Inspectors have placed the practice in special measures and warned that if improvements are not made within six months, Virgin Care Services Limited (which currently manages 18 primary care services across the country, including GP practices, walk-in centres and urgent care centres) could lose the 10-year contract that it holds to run the surgery.

Darren Tamplin-Compton, Senior Solicitor and Team Leader within Fletcher’s Medical Negligence Team said: “Most worryingly, the CQC rated this GP practice as inadequate for both safety and leadership. Inspectors identified that risks to patients were not being appropriately assessed or their safety monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe. There was a lack of clinical oversight to ensure information received regarding new diagnosis and medicine changes were not completed in a timely way. Patients with complex needs for example learning disabilities and older patients were not receiving their care in line with guidance. Medicines and associated equipment were not always in date or stored at the correct temperature and nursing staff tasked with monitoring did not take action when temperatures were above recommended levels. There was a corporate system for the handling of complaints, however, this did not include cascading the learning to staff working at the practice or ongoing monitoring. Action was not always taken to improve the quality of care as a result.”

Concluding, Darren said “One would have hoped for much, much, better from the healthcare arm of the global giant, Virgin, which on its website claims that ‘Sir Richard [Branson] is passionate about health and care and… decided to create Virgin Care because he believes that health and care services can be delivered in a more innovative way that focuses not only on the important outcomes but also every person’s experience of care’.”

The full CQC report published on 14th May 2018 can be found here. 

GPs in Scotland to Gain Legal Protection When Saying Sorry

Doctors in Scotland will have new legal protection when saying sorry to patients after errors have been made, the Medical Defence Union says.

As of 19 June, The Apologies Scotland Act 2016 will make it clear that an apology (outside of legal proceedings) is not an admission of liability.

Similar legislation had been in place in England and Wales since 2006 via the Compensation Act 2006 where it states: “An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.”

Senior solicitor, Christian Beadell, commented on the new protection, “All doctors have a professional duty to be open and honest with patients if things go wrong and an apology is an important part of that process. This new legislation will enshrine in Scottish law the principle already applied throughout the UK, namely that an apology does not amount to a legal enforceable admission of breach of duty.  Client’s often present with a letter of apology and believe that at this will give them a right to compensation. That is rarely the case, although an open admission can be used as a means of opening a dialogue with a defendant to see if a resolution can be achieved without the need to commence a lengthy investigation”.