Asked my religion in hospital

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

Wow! Bet your mom won't be asking you any more questions anytime soon!

I hesitate to ask, but what's his mom got to do with it?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

They use this for statistical purposes. You can't assess how much more dangerous the job of, say, high-wire artiste is relative to a desk job unless you have accident rates for both high-wire artistes and desk jobs.

It's unlikely to affect the treatment you receive.

The other point, of course, is that it's much easier to ask "what is your occupation?" than to give you a long list of occupations which would or might be relevant to one or more medical conditions, and then ask you if you hold any of those occupations.

And the other other point, of course, is that there are medical conditions for which a sedentary job is a risk factor. And when you're being admitted, the form is not designed on the assumption that the condition or suspected for which you are being admitted is the only condition with which you will ever be diagnosed.

None of the administration or medical staff could clarify why the information was being collected or what it's purpose was. Under data protection I think it's a pretty basic ask to be able to tell people why something is collected and how it'll be used. In fact some.staff openly admitted they didn't have a clue what the information was for.

Peregrinus

The counter staff aren't the "data controller" for data protection purposes, and they don't need to know why the data they collect is collected or what use is made of it in order to do their job, which is just collecting it.

I agree, it would be nice if they could tell you, but one of the unintended side effects of data protection legislation is that in a place like a hospital, where complex data protection requirements intersect with some fairly serious medical ethical issues, they don't want the counter staff giving out half-arsed versions of what the hospital does with the data it collects.

I think if you make an enquirer through the data protection commissioner you'll get a very full reply. But it won't come from the same people who key in the details of new admissions.

rainbow kirby

Was asked my religion at my booking-in appointment just over a month ago, midwife seemed a little surprised when I said "None". I think she just assumed that because I'm Irish that I was going to say Catholic straight away.

looksee

Thinking about it, I think it would be better if they said 'do you wish to have your religion stated on your records?' Its the demand that you fit into one of the slots they have invented that is frustrating.

Random bodies claiming to be priests or pastors should not have access to your information - and, come to think of it, would anyone look twice at a person in a clerical collar wandering round the hospital at visiting time looking for vulnerable people to engage with?

Cabaal

looksee wrote: »

Random bodies claiming to be priests or pastors should not have access to your information - and, come to think of it, would anyone look twice at a person in a clerical collar wandering round the hospital at visiting time looking for vulnerable people to engage with?

In all honesty I think the situation with priests visiting needs to be watched,

I've come across a few instances of a priest visiting a sick elderly person who is no longer 100% mental state wise and asking that they leave money to the church when they die.

Hospitals have a duty of care and allowing a person to come in and pressure a sick or inform person is a failing in their duty, same can be said for nursing homes.

realdanbreen

Cabaal wrote: »

In all honesty I think the situation with priests visiting needs to be watched,

I've come across a few instances of a priest visiting a sick elderly person who is no longer 100% mental state wise and asking that they leave money to the church when they die.

.

Really! You have come accross a 'few instances' of this. Did you then report that to the Gardai as it is an offence?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Really! You have come accross a 'few instances' of this. Did you then report that to the Gardai as it is an offence?

Hard for the Gardai to investigate something properly when they've also accompanied the same priest to the person's house so the priest could go through the persons personal belongings while they were in a care home,

Once again we're back to the issue of decades past.........blind trust in local priests.

This type of crap from the local priests is no different to the church sending letters to elderly people, an example of this was raised on Live Line relavetely recently,

The callers mothers husband recently died (something the local church would have been made aware of) they then send her a letter suggesting that she make a donation to the church in the region of 1000 euro's per year over 5 years.

Can be listed to at http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/0708/20150708_rteradio1-liveline-churchfund_c20809758_20809761_232_.mp3

The church have a track record of targeting vulnerable people in this manner, and yes a person who recently lost husband/wife is vulnerable regardless of their age.

equivariant

Deleted User wrote: »

I was admitted to Mount Carmel for surgery in 2005. On admission, I was asked if I wanted to let them know what religion I was. I stress that: I wasn't asked for my religion; I was told that I could let them know what religion I was if I wanted to. I said "none". The woman on reception ticked some box on her computer screen.

I was admitted to Mount Carmel for surgery again in 2012. The very same thing happened.

My answer didn't cause any confusion on either occasion, which is perhaps unsurprising given Mount Carmel's location. Now that it's owned by the HSE, I've no idea if the same thing would happen again, but I'd like to think that it would.

Sometimes, regrettably, people die in hospital. All of those people have some philosophical frame of reference for perceiving the universe - whether religious or not. For many of them, that frame of reference includes very important and stringent cultural views about how they should be dealt with when dying. For example, Catholics and Muslims have specific rituals associated with dying that are very important to them - and that require the presence of other Catholics or Muslims to be conducted correctly. On the other hand, atheists or their families do not require those rituals and indeed would find them unwelcome.

So for a hospital that wishes to take a completely holistic view of its duty of care to its patients, asking them for information about their belief systems is a very good thing indeed. The important thing is to give patients the opportunity to volunteer the information if they so wish, to handle the information with due respect for the wishes of the patient, particularly as they relate to privacy, and to respect patients of all religions and none. It ]
would also highlight the fact that people of certain belief systems have their ritualistic requests satisfied whereas people of other beliefs don't.

It's simple stuff really.

The problem I have with this is that asking a person to state what religion they are is not the same as asking them what rituals or taboos they want to observe. Maybe a person self describes as a Catholic but doesn't like priests, or maybe a Jehovah's Witness but really doesn't give a f**k about the blood transfusion taboo. Why don't they just ask straight up
'Are there any rituals or taboos that you would like to observe?'
I suspect that they don't ask this because it is somehow deemed disrespectful to refer to religious beliefs in that way. Also it highlights the fact that these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the core mission of the hospital.

On the other and, I bet they don't as someone if they are OK with chicken satay, when what they really want to know is whether or not she has a nut allergy.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

I've come across a few instances of a priest visiting a sick elderly person who is no longer 100% mental state wise and asking that they leave money to the church when they die.

Asking them when they are "no longer mental 100% state mental wise" seems a bit pointless. They won't be able to make a will, or alter an existing will, in that condition.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Asking them when they are "no longer mental 100% state mental wise" seems a bit pointless. They won't be able to make a will, or alter an existing will, in that condition.

Perhaps its part of a longer term plan to try get money through the person that has power of attorney? Or perhaps the priest isn't aware the person no longer control of their own will?

Regardless of which, no priest should be asking for money to be left to them or the parish when visiting a sick person. Its inexcusable.

If people want to leave money they'll leave money, an outside third party should not be pressuring them.

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Asking them when they are "no longer mental 100% state mental wise" seems a bit pointless. They won't be able to make a will, or alter an existing will, in that condition.

I think you know what Cabaal meant - someone who is lonely, anxious and whose thinking has slowed a bit could still be able to make or change a will. A person in hospital can be very vulnerable as it is very easy to quickly, if temporarily, become institutionalised.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree, it would be nice if they could tell you, but one of the unintended side effects of data protection legislation is that in a place like a hospital, where complex data protection requirements intersect with some fairly serious medical ethical issues, they don't want the counter staff giving out half-arsed versions of what the hospital does with the data it collects.

I had an odd experience of medical information and data protection recently. It had nothing to do with religion, but it might go some way towards explaining some of the baffling questions - and repeat questions - we get asked when we are registering in hospitals.

I had an initial consultation with a specialist a wee while ago, He works out of a number of locations, and previously worked out of Mount Carmel before it was closed and re-opened. Anyway, he asked me for details of my previous surgery, and I made a bit of a joke comment that it would be a lot easier for him if Mount Carmel was still under its previous management and he was still working there.

He said that wasn't the case, and told me that one of the things he always tries to avoid if he can is treating the same person more than once in two different places. If he treats someone in Tallaght, and then wants to treat them in (say) Beaumont, he can only access their Tallaght records in Tallaght and their Beaumont records in Beaumont. If he wants to access records from one hospital when treating the patient in another, he is required to give the patient a letter requesting the records, and the patient then has to enclose that letter with a covering letter authorising the records' transfer. Not only that, but if the patient gets more treatment and a subsequent transfer of records is needed, this can only be done with a new request.

That's good news from a patient confidentiality and data protection point of view - but it makes for a right mess when it comes to information sharing and management for patient care purposes.

looksee

The Spanish system would make a good deal more sense - you have a lifetime file and copies of all your records go into it, and it is your property. You hold it and take it with you when you attend a doctor or hospital. This is what I was told by a Spanish person, it may have changed but it sounds like a good idea.

equivariant

equivariant wrote: »

The problem I have with this is that asking a person to state what religion they are is not the same as asking them what rituals or taboos they want to observe. Maybe a person self describes as a Catholic but doesn't like priests, or maybe a Jehovah's Witness but really doesn't give a f**k about the blood transfusion taboo. Why don't they just ask straight up
'Are there any rituals or taboos that you would like to observe?'
I suspect that they don't ask this because it is somehow deemed disrespectful to refer to religious beliefs in that way. Also it highlights the fact that these things have nothing whatsoever to do with the core mission of the hospital.

On the other and, I bet they don't as someone if they are OK with chicken satay, when what they really want to know is whether or not she has a nut allergy.

Your point about religious beliefs "having nothing to do with the core mission of the hospital" is narrow-minded and, quite simply, wrong.

The questions aren't designed to suit narrow-minded people looking for reasons to be offended; they're designed to suit people of a variety of cultural backgrounds who understand why the questions are being asked and know how to answer them.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Hard for the Gardai to investigate something properly when they've also accompanied the same priest to the person's house so the priest could go through the persons personal belongings while they were in a care home,

And harder for them to investigate if you don't report what you've seen, eh? :cool:

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

And harder for them to investigate if you don't report what you've seen, eh? :cool:

Who says I haven't?

I have little faith in anything actually taking place given the supported already given by the Gardai to the priests in question,

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

The Spanish system would make a good deal more sense - you have a lifetime file and copies of all your records go into it, and it is your property. You hold it and take it with you when you attend a doctor or hospital. This is what I was told by a Spanish person, it may have changed but it sounds like a good idea.

It sounds like a disastrous idea if you're brought in after a road accident! Or if you're just not that good at keeping track of your papers.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It sounds like a disastrous idea if you're brought in after a road accident!

Or if you leave them behind at home on your way to a road accident...

A state-controlled cloud data service, with data owned by the patient, but which provides for authenticated access by approved data clients is the future for health records. Unfortunately, it's about 50 years in the future given the current pace of reform and adoption of secure technologies.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's about 50 years in the future given the current pace of reform and adoption of secure technologies.

I'd have to agree,
Not to mention they'll need to be a few pay rises given for them to "learn" the new computer system,

Peregrinus

I think there's an unavoidable tension between given the patient control over the data relating to them, and giving medics ready access to the data in circumstances where the patient may not be able to give consent or authority.

We have this in Australia - not only do hospitals have access to records created in other hospitals, but GPs have access to hospital records (and possibly other GP records, but I'm not sure about this). And I think they can also track your pharmacy records and identify, ahem, drug-seeking behaviour, at least with respect to prescription medication.

The advantages for providing integrated medical treatment are obvious. But, yes, it is a bit big brotherish. And in general I get the sense that data protection standards in Aus are nothing like as robust as they are in Europe.

Back to the subject of the OP. Yes, they ask you your religion when you're admitted to hospital in Australia. The answers "not given" and "no religion" are both perfectly acceptable. They don't share this data with the hospital chaplains, whose terms of appointment require them to provide pastoral care to any patient who wants it, regardless of denominational affiliation or the lack thereof. (Therefore, the chaplain doesn't need to know the patient's religious identification.) The result of this is that patients who have no religion may nevertheless be approached by a chaplain. Any patient can specifically request a visit from a chaplain or can request not to be approached by a chaplain, and that request will be relayed to the chaplains.

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

It sounds like a disastrous idea if you're brought in after a road accident! Or if you're just not that good at keeping track of your papers.

You will see I said copies of notes, so there is still a hospital / central record somewhere. Though even that would be no use if you were taken after an accident into a hospital other than the one you normally attend.

And if you cannot take care of your papers, well you would not be any worse off than you are at the moment.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Who says I haven't?

I have little faith in anything actually taking place given the supported already given by the Gardai to the priests in question,

With that in mind, how many of these attempts at fraud have you reported? If the Gardaí are disregarding reports of that nature, isn't that a scandal in itself? I'd say a few people would be more than curious to know which station or stations have Gardaí in them that would ignore crime reports of the type you describe.

TheChizler

robindch wrote: »

Or if you leave them behind at home on your way to a road accident...

A state-controlled cloud data service, with data owned by the patient, but which provides for authenticated access by approved data clients is the future for health records. Unfortunately, it's about 50 years in the future given the current pace of reform and adoption of secure technologies.

GF works in admin in CUH; St. James' wanted some patient data quickly and I suggested that she send an encrypted email, the consultant nearly had a fit at the proposal and insisted that the confidential data was FAXED, without a cover page that said "confidential", to a number she was pretty sure was right.

In slightly unrelated, but equally frustrating news they recently scrapped a load of digital voice recorders that the consultants used to email dictated letters to their secretaries for typing up, in favour of tape dictaphones that frequently jam or get overwritten, that they have to buy expensive, discontinued, proprietary batteries for.

anothernight

Peregrinus wrote: »

It sounds like a disastrous idea if you're brought in after a road accident! Or if you're just not that good at keeping track of your papers.

They're kept on file as well, at least in Madrid (can't speak for other places). You wouldn't lose your passport, birth certificate or bank account details; medical records have the same importance. Either way that's the sort of thing you bring to hospital for planned treatment, not when you've just had an accident! Depending on your condition, no one will ask your religion either.

MrPudding

TheChizler wrote: »

GF works in admin in CUH; St. James' wanted some patient data quickly and I suggested that she send an encrypted email, the consultant nearly had a fit at the proposal and insisted that the confidential data was FAXED, without a cover page that said "confidential", to a number she was pretty sure was right.

In slightly unrelated, but equally frustrating news they recently scrapped a load of digital voice recorders that the consultants used to email dictated letters to their secretaries for typing up, in favour of tape dictaphones that frequently jam or get overwritten, that they have to buy expensive, discontinued, proprietary batteries for.

I am involved with a blood bike organisation here in the uk and we occasionally have to do emergency deliveries of patient notes. Tends to be where a patient has been transferred but for some reason the notes did not go at the same time.

MrP

looksee

My GP's surgery has recently brought in a system of 6 month repeat prescriptions. Great.

However some bureaucrat in the system decided that it would be a good idea for a list of medications be provided to the patient when the prescription is provided, and the patient should keep this piece of paper in order to present it when requesting the next prescription. This request was to happen one month before the new prescription was due. If the paper is lost or otherwise not available, the patient provides a list of medications required on a different form.

So we have a 6 month old list of medication, which is probably by now wrong and will have to be cross referenced anyway...is actually just a printout of what medication was being taken 6 months ago, and this information, updated, is available on the computer...and patients are supposed to remember at five months to order a new prescription which could have changed in the month it apparently takes to issue the next one...and if it is lost then patients just request the medication they want!

Amazing. Especially when you consider that the surgery could be in contact directly with the pharmacy and update prescriptions through the computer system, no need for all these wodges of paper being physically moved around.