Andrew J Wilson 🇪🇺🏳️‍🌈

The most contentious issue of the latest NHSE guidance is the explicit mention about looking back at an episode of care one was previously involved in to see how things developed for professional "curiosity". Curiosity is a very poor word to use for multiple reasons not least because professional curiosity is the bedrock of holistic medicine and their phrasing comes across as a loaded word to diminish care, reflection, and professional development. Many have argued that "it is just common sense" however one of the problems that is inextricable from the concept of common sense is the trust placed in those who judge how the language used in guidance is interpreted. If no one trusts NHSE or regulators then everyone will naturally lurch to being overly risk-averse which will create inefficiencies, unforced errors, and damage morale. It should be uncontroversial to say that those who were never involved in patient care and yet go on to access patient information should be disciplined, if not sacked. But those who were previously involved in episodes of care should be given the professional latitude to follow up. Surely the professional who remembers a patient and cares enough about them to follow up, reflect, and learn is a legitimate and valid reason. @NHSEngland must come out and clarify this urgently or they risk either undermining professional development or some newfound unintended consequence like institutions getting patients to sign away all rights and protections in new waivers (hello website cookie disclaimers)