The investigation into Princess Kate’s medical records wasn’t referred to the police?

Everything old is new again, and everything around the “what’s going on with the Princess of Wales” conversation hearkens back to what we were dealing with in March. Mysterious “sightings” of Kate with janky photos and videos, lies about when certain photos were taken, lies about the chronology of Kate’s illness and recovery. Back in March, in the days just before Kate’s cancer-announcement video, one of the big stories was about a data breach at the London Clinic, and suspicions that someone in the hospital tried to access Kate’s medical records. The story was everywhere for a week… the week before the cancer-announcement video. I had my suspicions about what was really going on, but I will say two things can coexist: Kate has the right to medical privacy and I was personally surprised that no one at the London Clinic actually sold any information to the tabloids about Kate. Well, the whole medical-record story has gotten even weirder. According to the Mail, the “investigation” hasn’t even been referred to Scotland Yard.

Staff at the prestigious hospital at the centre of a data breach over the Princess of Wales’s private medical records may have had to contend with a ‘decoy’ trap set by managers, experts believe. The MoS can reveal that, three months on, The London Clinic remains under investigation and the case has not yet been referred to Scotland Yard, despite Health Minister Maria Caulfield stating in March that police had been asked to look at it.

Bosses at the hospital launched a probe after it was claimed at least one staff member had attempted to access personal details about Kate following her planned abdominal surgery in January. It is a criminal offence for any NHS or private healthcare staff to access the medical records of a patient without the consent of the organisation’s data controller. Now several data specialists have told this newspaper that, if the breach occurred, staff could have been caught through a ‘decoy’ tactic used by private hospitals that often have high-profile clients.

To protect the health data of VIP patients, hospitals often store it in a file under a fake name. A ‘decoy’ file is then created under the celebrity’s real name. This contains false information and is regularly checked by bosses to see if any wayward staff have opened it without permission.

If a breach is suspected, hospitals are required to launch their own inquiry while the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates whether management did anything wrong. But this process is laboriously slow. Sam Smith, of health data privacy group MedConfidential, said: ‘It’s disappointing but sadly normal that three months on there is no update about the investigation.’

He said data breaches were ‘unfortunately common’, adding: ‘It’s rare that people find out when a data breach has happened, even rarer that they can get the evidence to prove it, and if they do, the process is still very slow.’

Tom Llewellyn, a partner in commercial litigation and data protection at Ashfords law firm, said: ‘It might take years for action to be taken against the individuals.’ He highlighted a similar case last year when a former NHS secretary was fined £648 for accessing the medical records of more than 150 patients – four years after the breaches took place.

The London Clinic has provided no update since the suspected breach of the Princess of Wales’s health data was reported. The ICO told the MoS: ‘Investigations into reported data breaches can be highly complex and our expert team must be given adequate time to make their enquiries. To protect the integrity of a live investigation, we will not provide regular updates on its progress to those not directly involved until its conclusion.’

The Met Police confirmed they were ‘not aware of any referral’ about the breach. Kensington Palace said: ‘This is a matter for The London Clinic.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Hm. My gut says “cover up.” I’ve believed for some time that there’s so much going on behind-the-scenes with this particular story about the data breach and the reports of multiple London Clinic people attempting to access Kate’s files. The “decoy file” sounds both real and like an explanation the palace would give if Kate’s file ever becomes public. Like, if there’s ever a report of “this is why Kate was really hospitalized initially and this is when she was checked in,” the palace and the London Clinic can say “oh, that was the decoy file, that’s all a lie!” And the fact that the case hasn’t been passed on to Scotland Yard or the Met Police? Something really weird is happening here.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

78 Responses to “The investigation into Princess Kate’s medical records wasn’t referred to the police?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. bisynaptic says:

    It was Murdoch’s people, or Charles’s people?

    • Joyful Liluri says:

      I think BP/ Charles.

      Willie was acting so strangely and attempting to “fix” things with fake photos and videos – worsening an already fraught situation and creating additional crises on top of a missing princess. There was no consistent messaging, no transparency and honesty.

      I think BP wanted answers and they weren’t getting them from William.

      I wonder if the cancer announcement was an attempt at retaliation for the attempted theft. To steal Charles cancer “limelight” so to speak.

    • Or maybe nobody tried to get her file and that story was just cover for where is Can’t. If someone truly tried to get the file then they surly would want the police to investigate and find the person responsible.

      • Joyful Liluri says:

        That’s also extremely plausible.

        I was saying that between the two choices, I would think Charles. But both organizations seem as though they should be much more capable of obtaining restricted information than whatever this is.

        Perhaps burn notice etc has given me too much faith in spy types.

      • Anance says:

        The hospital personnel would know VIP records have decoys unless it’s someone very new. My feeling is the gossip at the hospital provides enough information. Simple things like she had these tests, then went to surgery with these doctors, her husband never came by, etc., allow health specialists to fill in the blanks and get close to what’s wrong with her.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        And maybe she was never there. She could have gotten treatment outside the country, and there was no file to access in the first place. This could be a big fake story to mislead people about where/when/what her treatment was.

      • Christine says:

        Ugh, I bet this is exactly it. This feels like the idiocy of William to a T, Mrs.Krabapple.

      • Where I worked as they were gradually introducing digital files all that was necessary to pull it up was a birthday. That was in the early 80s and it is likely harder now.

  2. equality says:

    Sounds like a recipe for disaster in health care. I would rather have things straight-forward and risk a breach than do a false name and risk health care workers having the wrong info and mis-diagnosing or giving the wrong treatment. If it were a health care worker who allegedly tried to access the files, wouldn’t they know this practice existed? I’m not sure I believe it really happened. It’s another thing just to try to make it appear that Kate was actually at the hospital there.

    • seaflower says:

      Hospitals have very strict rules about access to patients info, but also about medical records and creating fake/copies of files is not included in this. Imagine critical notes , like reactions to a drug, were put in the wrong file ( or the right file but someone looked up the wrong file). The medical malpractice suit for the doctors, nurses and hospital would be enormous.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      Equality, I agree completely with your post – both about fake files causing unnecessary (and potentially deadly) medical mixups. And also that I don’t believe any of this even happened. All they do is lie and this seemed a little too convenient to (try to) shut everyone up about what was wrong with Keen.

      And similar to my not believing that for someone as rich and high profile as her would have to wait months for cancer-testing lab results, there’s no way she’d have to wait years for a data breach investigation. If it’s a day of the week ending in Y, KP is telling another lie.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        “And also that I don’t believe any of this even happened.”
        I’m with you on this regarding this data breach. It was something they made up to fill columns and distract from the KP disaster. So of course it never reached the Scotland Yard.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Totally agree – I don’t think she was ever there. William didn’t visit, nobody saw here, there were conflicted stories about where she went after her release, etc. This is just part of the web of lies to mislead people about where Kate was, when her issue started, and what treatment she was getting

      • Julianna says:

        Hospitals have policies in place and rules for people to not access medical records when they are not involved in the care. Nonetheless, I have never heard of “decoy” medical records for high profile patients. Years ago I used to travel all over to many different hospitals and even in other countries and have never seen them creating a fake file. It could and would create a nightmare situation.

        I don’t understand how they wouldn’t immediately know who tried to access the medical record. They are tracked by usernames and passwords and it wouldn’t be hard to figure out. The papers insinuated employees and they never mentioned it was hackers (except the other article from December). Which to me, makes this story even more suspicious and obvious its a lie. And isn’t ironic that they didn’t try to access the literal King’s records.

        I don’t believe this situation even happened to begin with. They made this story up to distract from the Farmer Market scam and so they could divert the conversation away from all their deception, fraud and her whereabouts. When she supposedly “filmed” (she did NOT) the cancer AI video it was at the same time when the papers were saying the medical records were breached. And then it wasn’t released for 2 more days.

        I believe the AI cancer video dropped because the Farmer Market body double scheme didn’t work like they had planned and only drove out more speculation about their lies.

        So they literally just progressed with their lies and fakery and did another fraudulent video only they used cancer as an effective strategy to shame everyone, call people conspiracy theorist and stop people from asking legitimate questions about her whereabouts and all their lies/fraud.

        They also claimed cancer to cover up the real reason they can’t produce Kate to the public and an attempt to clean up a really messy convoluted timeline.

    • Joyful Liluri says:

      I agree with everything you said. Excellent points.

    • ncboudicca says:

      Agree that a “decoy file” sounds ridiculous and dangerous – and in the US, at least, we already have enough of an issue with accidental duplicate records to do something crazy like that on purpose. Also “bosses” don’t need to periodically check for breaches – there’s software that does that automatically. In addition, there’s also a concept called “Break the Glass” where you can force any user to have to enter a reason for accessing a chart, which ought to prevent accidental or merely curious breaches, and there are private encounters where you can prevent most users from even seeing the patient on census reports or patient lists or the like. I have no idea what software the London Clinic uses, but I guarantee they’ve got at least some of the capabilities mentioned above, plus a stringent confidentiality policy.

    • I personally know of a world renown movie star who was getting medical treatment for the after effects of cancer and her file was under a fake name. This is a common practice.

      But there weren’t two files, and everyone at the clinic who had any contact with her knew she was under the fake file name. the 2 files story sounds sketchy, The only way that would make sense is if the decoy file were empty or had a special code on it to alert medical personnel that it wasn’t the real chart.

      There are probably different systems for VIPs, and definitely different access processes, additionally, so this whole Kate decoy file story is weird and seems like a way to deny whatever might leak, or even an attempt to discredit Concha’s reporting (which I don’t know whether to believe or not, but we know KP doesn’t like what she’s reporting).

    • BeanieBean says:

      I thought the extra set of fake records seemed a bit ridiculous & possibly dangerous, as well. It’s a lot of extra work & it sounds like it’s only electronic data. They still do a lot of handwritten notes, don’t they? On the clipboard at the end of your bed or just inside the door? Were those faked, too?

    • Kane says:

      2 easy answers.
      She was never there.
      They used a paper file.

      Honestly I would prefer a paper file. Too many data breaches. Too many hospitals have data stolen.

  3. Becks1 says:

    I am surprised that its taking this long – I would expect something like this to be fast tracked – but the quotes in the article make it pretty clear that its not unusual for it to take a while. And it sounds like the ICO is investigating, so its not just sitting with the London Clinic. It’s not that its never going to be referred to Scotland Yard, it just hasn’t been referred yet.

    The decoy file makes total sense to me as well and my guess is that it has pretty benign information in it, like it might say Kate had an appendectomy or something.

    As a side note – 650 pound fine for accessing over 150 files?? Good lord. That’s barely a slap on the wrist.

    • seaflower says:

      In Australia’s medical system they would be sacked and reported to the regulator, making future work almost impossible in health care.

    • The Hench says:

      Yes, @Becks1, that’s the key thing. The headline here is trying to make a deal out of the case not being referred to the police but, actually, the quoted info makes it clear that a) it hasn’t been referred to the police YET and b) the delay between event and referral is perfectly normal. Unfortunately so much around the Kate disappearance has been so hinky that it’s easy to jump to dramatic conclusions around everything to do with her. I’m not saying this won’t turn out to be dodgy down the line – just I don’t think we can call it on what we have from this.

      However, I think the idea of a decoy file is, as others have pointed out above, bloody dangerous. There’s potential for an innocent but potentially harmful medical mix up over files unless EVERYONE involved with Kate knows about the decoy file which then removes the whole point of having a decoy! Far better to have appropriate security and alarms around the real file.

      • Gabby says:

        Yes. They might as well have just named the decoy file “Kate Middleton Decoy File”.

      • Julianna says:

        The problem is why would it take months to investigate 3 employees accessing records. They either tried to access or they did access them through their own username and password. The only thing that I could see a potential problem with is if all 3 of these employees are denying it and claiming someone else used their password.

  4. Dee(2) says:

    Yeah this decoy file thing sounds like groundwork for plausible deniability. Whether that is because she was never there, or because they don’t want the actual reason that she was there to ever get out into the public who knows. But I will say not turning it over to Scotland Yard makes me think that the fewer amount of people that they have on this case who could potentially see the real file is driving the motivation behind that. So whatever brought her to that hospital initially, or whatever other ailments she may have been diagnosed with as part of her intake they definitely don’t want in the public sphere.

    • Joyful Liluri says:

      Ohhhh that’s an excellent point.

      • Belinda says:

        Indeed it is. Are they really trying to say that Kate KATE the FUTURE Queen consort is treated the same as anyone else who have attempts on their medical records being hacked?!!!!!!!

        That Mrs So and So who works in Asda on the checkout is higher up in the queue for an investigation because her records got hacked a day before?’!!!!!

        Come on, if the royals were that equal, then they would eat in Maccie Ds, sleep in Travel Lodges, enjoy a Weatherspoons drink etc, and worry about the leccy bill and council tax.

        Absolute rot. It would be fast tracked in a second if her records were hacked, or attempted to be hacked.

        Giving me Baldrick vibes here, the immortal line of “I have a cunning plan”……..

    • Underhill says:

      I think you are correct. All along, there was a great effort at coverup by a few people. Only a few know what actually happened in a complex situation with many moving parts. The effort all along has been at misdirection and limiting accurate infor getting out.

    • That’s what I take away from this. The real reason she was treated there, if she was, is not what they’ve told people and contains something they don’t want getting out.

      While KP has handled this horribly, if Kate was treated for something psychologically induced, for example, it would be really devastating to have that leak. If this is BP warning shot because they know something about what happened and it’s not the story being fed to the public, that would be exceptionally cruel.

      Two things are true: Kate is entitled to medical privacy and KP should have been more professional and up front from the beginning. Whatever they are covering up can’t be as bad as how they’ve undermined themselves as blatant liars. Or if it is worse than the utter disaster and disgrace of their propaganda, then William shouldn’t be King.

      • Anance says:

        True, the more “Where’s Kate” lasts, the more one realizes that someone is probably responsible for Kate’s predicament. Well…the police always look at the husband first.

    • Gabby says:

      Going back to the initial KP announcement about Kates abdominal surgery, NO ONE forced KP to name the hospital. They volunteered that information, and the announcement would have been just fine without it. The public wasn’t going to rise up and demand to know the where. And the same goes for specifying abdominal surgery. Just say she’s having a medical procedure, and to respect her privacy the palace will be making no further comment.

      • Jais says:

        You’re right @gabby. The fact that they even included the hospital name in the first place was odd. It wasn’t necessary and then we had to watch William do his one papped visit🙄

    • Christine says:

      Excellent point, Dee

  5. Em says:

    Either the hack actually happened and they’ve “quietly” resolved issues or they just threw London hospitals under the bus to gain Kate sympathy points and add credibility to their story that she was actually admitted there

  6. manda says:

    Just seems like no real info was obtained by whoever breached, otherwise the secret of what is happening would be out, right?

  7. Sunday says:

    It’s all bs. Can’t leak medical records if she was never there to begin with, can’t investigate a breach that never happened. Oh what a tangled web we weave…

    • sevenblue says:

      Didn’t the hospital confirm that they were investigating the personnel who tried to access to her files without authorization? I think, that part is true that some personnel looked for her medical records. What I also don’t believe, she was ever there. There is no way she was in that hospital and only her husband visited her and it was just one time. There is also no way no one got a pic of her leaving while the hospital was surrounded by the reporters and cameras since the King was also there.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think she was in the hospital but not when they said she was (I think she was there and left before the surgery was ever announced.) but its also possible just as a general matter, that she has gone to the clinic before and so had a file there and that’s what was breached (or someone attempted to breach.) Like her file doesn’t have anything to do with January.

      • The Hench says:

        The London Clinic is often used by the Royal Family. It’s perfectly possible that they have a Kate file irrespective of whether she was actually in there in January or not.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Becks1, yes I thought that maybe she was there earlier and they notified the press after she left the hospital, so she won’t be bothered by the tabloids during her surgery. But, is it possible that a royal would go to the hospital and no one would notice an increased security, police presence in the hospital? People would surely gossip about it on SM when we didn’t know Kate was sick. So, I currently believe, Kate was never there, like you said maybe she already had a file from previous visits. Also, the hospital said, some personnel “tried”, not that they were successful. I think, it was a story to force KP to come out and share info about Kate. This story also shows there was no crime to follow up by the police.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think there can be increased security presence and you just wouldn’t know what’s going on. My mom worked for decades at Johns Hopkins and they obviously got a LOT of big wigs, she would have no idea who, just that someone “important” was there because she noticed more security trucks or whatever. So I can absolutely believe that a royal would be at the London Clinic and while people might gossip, it wouldn’t be a big deal overall.

    • SussexWatcher says:

      Exactly

    • Underhill says:

      There is some deception here. It could be that she wasn’t at that hospital but the nearby Prince Edward VII hospital which they also use, maybe earlier than reported. Either way, she wasn’t there when they said she was, the few episodes of coming and going were for the cameras strictly and fooled no one.

      • Anastasia says:

        This is what I think, Underhill, she wasn’t at the London clinic then, and that’s what the record show.

        I personally archive any of my clients who aren’t active within the past 3 months, it’s really easy to unarchive them, but it takes a minute.

        If someone just did a search for a patient, but didn’t actually access any of the records because there were no records that would also make sense as to why it’s slow and the fine is so low

  8. Zapp Brannigan says:

    If she was not treated at that clinic, there would be no breach of data, so no need to report a breach to the Met. Just tossing ideas about.

  9. Tina says:

    At the time of this story I assumed it was just made up to generate more sympathy for Kate. Obviously accessing private medical records is awful and everyone should be on the patients side. So the fact that nothing has gone to the police just confirms it was a non-story for me. Also think the fact that the press is brining this up is yanking WandK’s chain a bit.

  10. Lulu says:

    Creating a fake record using a well known persons identity. Sketchy yet right up middle managements alley.

    • The Hench says:

      Only this (if it happened) was the other way around. They HAD a famous person and hid her file using an unknown person’s name – presumably? I mean there would be little point in taking the file marked ‘The Princess of Wales’ and filing it under ‘Sir Elton John’….

  11. Amy Bee says:

    I think the data breach story was made up by the Palace in an attempt to distract the public and social media from asking about Kate’s whereabouts.

    • TN Democrat says:

      Me, too, Amy Bee. This story also coincides with a rumor last year that Russian hackers hacked her medical records and were threatening to reveal something damaging. KP is trying to muddy the waters.

  12. The Hench says:

    So…times are hard at the moment and what I’m mainly taking from this story is the fact that when the full might of the UK justice system was brought to bear on the NHS employee who unlawfully accessed the records of 150 people, said employee was fined *checks notes* £648.

    Then I’m mentally calculating how much some real information on Kate right now might raise…

    Back in a minute…

  13. Interested Gawker says:

    Proof of life.

  14. Rapunzel says:

    My theory: The data breech was people working at the London Clinic who compared notes and realized nobody at the clinic had seen her. So they were checking to see if she was there. She was not.

    She was at a different hospital. She’s always been elsewhere. That’s the crux of all of the weirdness around her health. She’s got no real ETA for coming home yet.

  15. milquetoast says:

    I’m dying with that photo of Willnot and the shovel.

  16. Mslove says:

    We don’t know if Keen was actually at that particular hospital. When Keen returns to public life, KP will try to muddy the waters with accusations of lack of privacy from internet trolls, instead of giving explanations about frankenphotos, AI videos and lies.

  17. aquarius64 says:

    Kate is the wife of the heir to the throne and mother to a future king and her whereabouts and medical records are not a priority? Tin foil tiara: there was a data breach but not by staff. That’s the cover story. Foreign enemies of the UK got a hold of them and found out what is really wrong with Kate, if anything, and it put
    together what maybe wrong with the Waleses’ marriage. The Crown maybe
    compromised and Charles could be
    handing over government documents
    from his daily red boxes or funds from the Duchy of Lancaster to keep that
    country quiet. The last thing the Windsors want to be seen as is a national security risk. It will bring back memories of the Duke of Windsor and his sympathies to the Nazis. It’s probably why the Middletons are quiet; the Firm and the government are leaning on them. My two cents.

    • Square2 says:

      Outside of UK & some Commonwealth countries, the FK,FQ and even the BRF itself are not that important & influential to other parts of the world. Three of late QE2’s children were divorced, so another divorce in BRF might be embarrassing but not a big deal. It would make more sense if the foreign enemies of the UK get files about KC3. (Like Put1n has on the 45.)

  18. Joanne says:

    Kaiser, anytime you use the photo of William with the shovel, it should have the “am I manly enough” banner with it. I’m amazed at your recollection of all the goofy photos.

  19. crazyoldlady says:

    I work in healthcare in this area specifically – for a massively huge globally known org. I have never, nor have my teams, or anyone I work with, nor any of the industrywide work groups, committees, standard bodies – ever discussed, considered, or proposed setting up decoy medical health records.

    • Julianna says:

      @crazyoldlazy

      Never have seen that either. They do not set up decoy files. They are LIARS.

    • Christine says:

      Thanks for this, I have no understanding of the inner workings of the healthcare industry, which is obviously what the Wails are hoping for.

  20. BeanieBean says:

    They certainly like their fluffery over there, don’t they. ‘Our expert team, blah blah blah.’ There will be no final report from this ‘expert team’, they’ll just quietly stop looking and hope people will forget.

  21. Nerd says:

    Wasn’t there a supposed hack to access her files late last year, which was strange in itself because it was only for her files and long before the hospital convoy that happened and the media refuses to mention and the “scheduled abdominal surgery” in January? Why hasn’t there been any focus on why she was the only royal whose medical information was being accessed and why wasn’t it even mentioned at the exact time it happened? Was there something known about her health at the time that someone was aware of and was trying to get more details and maybe blackmail information? Was someone successful in hacking her medical information before and all of this is just a result of trying to get ahead of it to avoid any public backlash or embarrassment in their eyes?

  22. Square2 says:

    Possible scenarios:

    1.) Fake story (for whatever reason and purpose). No one was trying to get her medical records.

    2.) The attempted breach happened, but the hackers were not focus on any single one person’s files. Nowadays hackers target hospitals for ransom money purpose, they’re not interested in who gets what illness.

    3.) She was never in London Clinics this year.

  23. Julianna says:

    Also, weren’t the Russian bots on social media right around the same time of this supposed employee invasion of privacy and the week around the cancer video? And then there was the leak about some kind of BBC announcement.

    I remember being on Twitter and #whereiskate was ramping up. And then all of a sudden I logged on that night and there was a scourge of bots about mainly Charles but also #whereiskate hashtag was drowned out from the people actually QUESTIONING the deception and fraud of KP & Kates whereabouts.. The bots on Kate were mainly saying repetively over and over that she was beautiful instead of factual information about KP j@ckassery but still using the hashtag #whereiskate. It was really strange actually.

    Is it possible KP deployed those bots themselves? The article then dropped stating China, Russia, and Iran were trying to “destabilize the nation” and fueling disinformation about Kate. “Hostile state actors” were blamed (instead of KP) for the “social media frenzy”.

    William and KP destabilized themselves without the help of “state actors”. I think it’s entirely possible they jumped on the bandwagon with Charles Russian bots and deployed their own to make it look like they were also “destablized” .

    They blame everything on everyone else. And 99.9% of it is made up stories and lies. Medical records supposedly being breached. Russian bots. The week before that it was Americans. The week before that it was “Sussex squad”. Everybody else but themselves to blame.

    • Christine says:

      I remember that. It’s also really easy to see the KP bots in action when there is suddenly a big uptick in that twitter poll about whose wedding dress was better, Kate or Meghan. When KP panics, there is suddenly a rush of accounts resurrecting that ancient poll and voting for Kate, all with a long trail of numbers at the end of the account name. They really shouldn’t make it so obvious, and have Meghan votes thrown in, but it’s KP, and they are idiots.

  24. sara says:

    two things: I worked in a pathology dept processing material for high level gov officials, while we treated these cases as VIP there was never any fake names or any other unusual lengths that we went to.
    other thing: if you work in a hospital ya can’t just type in a name and get into their med files. and even that act of trying that HIPPA violation can get u fired.

    • Christine says:

      By this time next week, the story will be spun that the British royals are so incredibly powerful and important, the entire healthcare system world-wide has a policy to create dummy files to throw the ravenous hoards off the scent of a Windsor.

  25. Lulu says:

    No law in the UK about intentionally falsifying medical records?

  26. DetachedObserver says:

    I used to work in a very busy specialty medical clinic that utilized only electronic medical files. My job was updating patient records. The physicians entered their notes electronically, and my task was to correct typos and to summarize/clarify the often hastily-written updates, then refer the file for next actions.

    This was more than a decade ago, and even back then we had the ability to lock access to certain files. These files were numbered and not accessible by patient name or demos – and only those who had a “need to know” could see that they even existed in the system. Our office manager was the only staff member who did the updates on these “special” files – she and the physicians were the only staff who could even see the files existed using their logins. The general staff, of course, was aware that certain VIPS were patients, but none of us were able to see or even search for their files.

    I can only imagine that, in the present day, this prominent clinic that treats dignitaries and royalty would have an even more secure system in place to protect their patients’ medical privacy. I can buy that some staff did try to search for Kate Middleton’s file, and probably got busted and flagged within the system for unauthorized searches. In our office, that would have meant immediate termination.

  27. Abisola says:

    I work with the NHS and it’s strange. My Trust who doesn’t have royal family as its patients can find out immediately all the people who accessed a patients records. What takes time to investigate is finding out if they had the appropriate reasons to do so or were breaking data privacy rules.
    In a hospital of that size I imagine it wouldn’t take a day to determine if the nurse or staff accused had a reason to view Kate’s records.

    The system can be used to run a search and shows those with same surname and does a scan to see if you have checked your family members data for instance as a NHS staff.

    The rule is you shouldn’t even check your records not to talk of your friend or neighbour. My Trust takes it very seriously and it has led to dismissal and even police investigation.

    My point is for a large Trust, with over 15k staff, data breach investigation doesn’t take months, and we report to the ICO when it is a serious breach like this one.

    So it is interesting that ICO has no knowledge of this.

  28. Tanisha says:

    Accessing someone’s medical record is not a criminal offense. The UK doesn’t have HIPAA laws but they do have a framework called GDPR but it protects the release of information but it is not codefied in Parliment or whatever. If anything, if there were to find out who unethically accessed her records, they could do a civil sue and the person could be fired but that is about it.