Search

John Tingle, Linda Gibson and Maria Ferrante discuss a new framework for the patient safety agenda.

A consequence of the Government's agenda for nursing is that registered nurses are increasingly required to regard themselves as autonomous practitioners. It is therefore necessary to re-visit the legal principles involved so as to be able to identify where safe practice can be incorporated into the new innovative ways of nursing. The purpose of this article is to identify and reflect upon the ways in which nurses are incorporating these principles into practice, and secondly, to reflect on the question of accountability as expressed through the law and through the professional regulatory body's code of professional conduct.

Continuing the series of articles on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which for the most part came into force in October 2007, this article considers the significance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2007), and its implications for nursing staff. The Secretary of State is required to provide a code or codes of practice on the Act covering specified areas. A draft code was prepared and was revised that came into force on 1 April 2007. The article sets out who is bound to follow the Code of Practice and the consequences if it is ignored. Informal (unpaid) carers are not required by the Act to follow the Code but it is hoped that in practice they will do so. The Ministry of Justice (replacing the Department of Constitutional Affairs) is responsible for monitoring the Code and will revise it from time to time.

In this series, the author has bought two themes to the reader: first, an awareness of the elements of the common law that operate to inform us of our duties as health providers, and second, current information that is applicable in each of the areas of law that has been discussed. This conclusion is designed to bring together strands of debate that the series has brought to the attention of the reader.

In Part One, three aspects of the principles that underpin the law of confidentiality were identified from a review of case law. Public interest(s), public safety and the protection of vulnerable people were identified as producing a matrix whereby health providers could see that the rules relating to confidentiality were viewed by all in society as being of the utmost importance. This article concentrates on the codes of conduct that two regulatory bodies have produced to guide the practice of health professionals. The General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) have codes of conduct that are very similar in their guidance. This is not surprising given that the central importance of confidentiality is reflected at the highest possible levels of judicial and political thinking.

In this series we have seen that competent adult patients have the legal right to withhold their consent to treatment offered to them. This rule applies to all areas of treatment and care, even where treatment offered is for a serious or severe condition. It applies equally where in the extreme situation, a refusal is likely to result in the person's death (House of Lords, 1994; Re MB, 1997; Re JT, 1998; Re AK, 2001). However, many people do not meet the strict criteria that enables them to consider themselves 'competent'. Where a person cannot be considered competent, another set of legal principles are effected, by the common law, and now by statute.

The last two articles considered the right of others under Data Protection legislation to access a patient's records and the right to access medical reports for employment or insurance purposes. This article considers the duty of confidentiality and the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which protect the confidentiality of health records.