Page 190 - 11. 2019 New 26-05-21 No Table

Our Ref: ENF/18/Q2/SC/6273
Dear Mrs Cordell
Re: Your complaint regarding the sharing of your son’s information
Thank you for passing on your concerns in your conversation and initial email with Angela
th
th
Hague on 30 July 2018, and subsequently with Rachel Yona on 10 August 2018. You
raised some key questions relating to information governance and the sharing of information
regarding your son. Please accept our sincere apologies for the delay in our response to your
queries, which was due to there being a separate ongoing investigation within the Trust
regarding the matters you have raised.
Your concerns have been investigated and I am now in a position to respond to your
complaint. Your concerns were investigated by Rachel Yona (Enfield Adult Mental Health
Community Services Manager) and involved interviews with staff and a review of your son’s
clinical records.
th
You stated that a report written by Angela Hague regarding your son, dated 15 June 2018
th
th
and 19 June 2018, had been presented in court on 26 June 2018. You stated you had not
had prior access to these reports and explained that you had considered the court case and the
assessments by Angela Hague were separate processes.
Please be assured that we have looked into this matter and I can confirm the report used in
court was not a formal report, but rather a response by Angela to a request for information.
The Trust had communicated to the Council Legal Services that we would not be providing a
report for the Court and it was recommended they commission an independent report if this
were required. However as part of the investigation, it has been highlighted that this
communication was only shared verbally with the Council Legal Services, and the position of
the Trust was not clarified in writing.
During our communications with the Council Legal Services it was asked whether your son
had engaged in his recent assessment, and it was for this reason the information presented in
court was given. Our investigation found that the information which was sent was not a
limited, direct response to the question posed to the Trust; I sincerely regret therefore that
information was overshared and as such this aspect of your complaint is upheld.
This is a matter we have taken very seriously; I would like to offer you our sincere apologies
that your son’s information was used for anything other than it’s intended use whilst in the
hands of the
Chairman: Mark Lam
Chief Executive: Jinjer Kandola
101,
Trust, and assure you that we fully understand our role in ensuring the security and
safekeeping of records relating to all of those in our care. We have completed a full internal
incident investigation into this matter, and I would like to assure you that all due processes
and actions have been taken in relation to this breach.
I understand that you also were concerned about the processing of your son’s information by
the Court and the Local Authority. We are aware your son did not give consent for his
records to be used in Court, and I can confirm the Trust also did not give consent for the
sharing of information by the Local Authority with the Court. Our investigation found that
the London Borough of Enfield requested to know if your son had engaged in treatment. As
part of the legal proceedings the Court had asked for an assessment of your son’s capacity to
litigate and capacity to understand the meaning of the interim injunction from January 2018.
Whilst we cannot speak on behalf of the Courts, we believe that this was why they passed on
the information.
I am very sorry to learn that you feel the trust between yourself, your son, and the Mental
Health Services has been broken. I understand that your son is now being seen by the Enfield