• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Frantic search for missing three-year-old boy, Noah, in Brantham, Suffolk

Police have released CCTV footage of Noah Woods, last seen on Tuesday

1789562007927.png

Police can now confirm the last confirmed sighting of Noah Woods was from CCTV in the park is at 2.37pm yesterday afternoon, Tuesday, September 15, when he became separated from a relative after visiting the playground in Merriam Close. IPSWICH STAR
 
Don't worry, Danny and his troops are on the way.

Danny Tommo
@RealDannyTommo
Urgent public appeal: To members of the public and members of the Patriot platform: We have been asked to assist in the search for Noah. Locals and police have said they would welcome our support.

I have been in contact with the little boy’s father, and as you can see, he wants everyone to help.

We are on our way now.

Make sure you go to the postcode so you can register and the police can instruct you where to search.

#PatriotPlatform

Video in link
 
In the United States, up to 800,000 children are reported missing annually. That breaks down to about three children missing long enough to be formally reported every two seconds.

We're gonna need a bigger thread.
 
◊◊◊◊'s sake I see the "something doesn't add up" conspiracy ◊◊◊◊◊ are out in force.
 
I'll put this here, as it's related...


Right...This is an issue which has arisen any number of times in any number of trusts, not just the ones mentioned; it's a by-product of computerised records, which obviously can be accessed remotely, unlike paper files.

However, everyone, but everyone, in any given trust will have to have undertaken annual training in information governance, which covers data protection, confidentiality and all. There will be trust policies and guidelines on confidentiality and accessing of patient notes. Everyone from a clinical background will have professional requirements covering these areas.

WTAF are folk playing at accessing notes they have no clinical reason to access?

Every access of notes can be traced (certainly in the systems I used) back to an individual user account: do folk not know this?

Notes deemed sensitive for whatever reason (I came across those belonging to staff members or families of staff members, high profile patients - think Raoul Moat - and such like being defined as sensitive) can be locked and access allowed only to certain relevant clinicians, who will have special access arrangements and that access will be closely monitored.

How the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do these idiots not know this?

And why the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do they think they have any sort of right to access notes of anyone other than one of their own patients?

And, aside from ward admin staff, why would anyone not a clinician think they have any class of access to clinical information?

Oh, and Jim Mackey can just ◊◊◊◊ off on general principle, as he's a twat.
 
I'll put this here, as it's related...


Right...This is an issue which has arisen any number of times in any number of trusts, not just the ones mentioned; it's a by-product of computerised records, which obviously can be accessed remotely, unlike paper files.

However, everyone, but everyone, in any given trust will have to have undertaken annual training in information governance, which covers data protection, confidentiality and all. There will be trust policies and guidelines on confidentiality and accessing of patient notes. Everyone from a clinical background will have professional requirements covering these areas.

WTAF are folk playing at accessing notes they have no clinical reason to access?

Every access of notes can be traced (certainly in the systems I used) back to an individual user account: do folk not know this?

Notes deemed sensitive for whatever reason (I came across those belonging to staff members or families of staff members, high profile patients - think Raoul Moat - and such like being defined as sensitive) can be locked and access allowed only to certain relevant clinicians, who will have special access arrangements and that access will be closely monitored.

How the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do these idiots not know this?

And why the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do they think they have any sort of right to access notes of anyone other than one of their own patients?

And, aside from ward admin staff, why would anyone not a clinician think they have any class of access to clinical information?

Oh, and Jim Mackey can just ◊◊◊◊ off on general principle, as he's a twat.
Agreed. In my ICT consultancy days I once showed some people how to lock down records access. They were quite surprised how granular access control could be implemented.
 
I'll put this here, as it's related...


Right...This is an issue which has arisen any number of times in any number of trusts, not just the ones mentioned; it's a by-product of computerised records, which obviously can be accessed remotely, unlike paper files.

However, everyone, but everyone, in any given trust will have to have undertaken annual training in information governance, which covers data protection, confidentiality and all. There will be trust policies and guidelines on confidentiality and accessing of patient notes. Everyone from a clinical background will have professional requirements covering these areas.

WTAF are folk playing at accessing notes they have no clinical reason to access?

Every access of notes can be traced (certainly in the systems I used) back to an individual user account: do folk not know this?

Notes deemed sensitive for whatever reason (I came across those belonging to staff members or families of staff members, high profile patients - think Raoul Moat - and such like being defined as sensitive) can be locked and access allowed only to certain relevant clinicians, who will have special access arrangements and that access will be closely monitored.

How the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do these idiots not know this?

And why the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ do they think they have any sort of right to access notes of anyone other than one of their own patients?

And, aside from ward admin staff, why would anyone not a clinician think they have any class of access to clinical information?

Oh, and Jim Mackey can just ◊◊◊◊ off on general principle, as he's a twat.

I'm guessing, either morbid curiosity or wanting to tip off the press newsdesks.


BTW Do Raoul Moat's records mention the KFC or the fishing rod...?
 
One has to feel for little Noah's grandfather, who apparently was the relative looking after him ATT. It seems the little scamp found a gap in the fence around the play area, and he was off! Poor Granddad seems to have fallen flat on his face as he raced after him, shouting. Unfortunately, Noah was hard of hearing as well as 'mildly autistic'. It's all terribly tragic. The diver who found him said the body was about five metres out and entangled in underwater roots. The depth of water was 1.8 metres - almost six feet deep.
 
I'm guessing, either morbid curiosity or wanting to tip off the press newsdesks.


BTW Do Raoul Moat's records mention the KFC or the fishing rod...?

Moat's records with my old trust were, as I said, locked; they also only covered periods when he was treated by the trust, not the events which led to his death; I was not clinically involved, given that he was by age if nowt else an adult, so I would have had no clinical reason to view them; I did know folk who treated him, but no-one talked, as they are sensible folk; Hankinson's book also made reference to his treatment by my old trust, which is where I know more about it.

The other stuff is still utterly stupid, traceable, forbidden by all the things I mentioned; if folk can't stop themselves doing that, then disciplinary and legal books should be thrown at the idiots.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom