A Surrey AMHP recorded that personal data about a subject was shared due to urgency.
The data subject had removed consent to share data, dissented to referrals for MH support, was not known to services, was rightly assessed as holding capacity, did not meet the Care Act 2014 having no care or support needs, but a police referral from the MASH team highlighted suicidal ideation. The accompanying email stated not a safeguarding issue. The SCARF as well as identifying suicidal ideation also stated the person was in a place of safety, didn’t have suicidal ideation, was supported by family and would not consent to data sharing or referrals. The Social worker assigned to review the Scarf recorded does not consent to data sharing, that the council did not deal with health matters and breached SCARF policy by sharing the data with a non statutory safeguarding partner. The Senior AMHP has identified that the data was rightly shared due to urgency. What should we do in this situation. The DHSC SHARE Consensus indicates if a person has capacity and poses no risk to others and dissents we should keep confidentiality… uk gdpr suggests we should identify a lawful basis prior to sharing, but does a professionals percienved ‘urgency’ change the position .?
From my view this is not legitimate because just stating the word ‘urgency’ does not qualify sharing personal data unless there is an evidential basis in sharing that information.
Based on what you have written the patient clearly has capacity and was determined not mentally unwell by external third party institutions, agencies and authorities.
Usually a social worker is from the same council as the AMHP and if they are recording a breach mentioning the other agencies words and views - then it reinforces that the AMHP had no legal grounds for sharing that data.
The patient was not under section - nor assessed - so there was no live and imminent serious risk documented at the time the personal information was shared.
Someone highlighting a symptom of ‘suicidal ideation’ is not evidence alone of a risk or harm overriding an individual’s consent - it is just a potential symptom - the patient at the very least must be observed and presenting with actions and behaviours indicative of showing risk or harm in order for any professional to share someone’s data.
The consequences of this breach of confidentiality would raise further eyebrows if it were released to third parties that have no bearing in a professional capacity or context.
Handling personal data can be complex - but consent cements itself as crystal-clear.