Indemnifier Counsels: Caution Telling Patient, Advice Sought
- Details
- Published: Tuesday, 08 July 2025 10:25
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1507
It may be time to add ‘opsec‘ (Operational Security) to the list of dental abbreviations. A leading indemnifier has asked its members facing complaints not to disclose that they are contacting their defence organisation for guidance.
The mail out to members aimed to inform them of “best practices in sharing details of any advice from or discussions you have with your dental defence organisation.”
In answer to the question: “Should you tell a patient that you are seeking advice from your indemnity provider?” the answer was that, unless asked by their indemnity provider to do so, they should not.
They reported recently seeing an increasing numbers of complaints cases in which either the practice manager or the dental practitioner has informed the patient that the clinician was seeking advice from their indemnity provider, and in some case put this is writing in an acknowledgement to the patient, or recorded the information in the patient’s clinical records. Seeking advice from an indemnity provider is not a good reason for explaining to a patient a delay in managing their complaint.
Two reasons were provided for not telling patients that defence organisation advice was being sought. Firstly, any advice members sought and received from indemnity providers is confidential to them. Telling the patient that one is seeking advice, increases patient expectations of a financial payment, and it risks a further complaint by the patient that there might be a breach their confidentiality if clinical records are sent to indemnifiers. For this reason clinical records must be redacted if members are seeking advice regarding the handling of a complaint. Failure to so would breach UK GDPR. (This does not apply if the patient is raising a clinical negligence claim or if the GDC is involved, as there are exceptions within the legislation covering these scenarios.) The second reason is that telling a patient that one is seeking advice can turn what was a fairly simple complaint to deal with into a more complex situation, with patients often demanding to see details of the confidential advice provided by the defence organisation, under threat of GDC referral.
Details of discussions with indemnity providers should not be recorded in the patient’s clinical records. This is because in the event of the patient or their solicitor making a subject access request seeking access to the records under UK GDPR, then the confidential advice received, is made available to the patient and their solicitor. This can not only make life more difficult for the clinician, but also affects the ability of the indemnity organisation to manage any claim.
Further key points were that members should not offer to pay the costs of further treatment at another practice or otherwise settle a claim before speaking to the defence organisation.
One reason for this was that such action without prior authorisation could impact the assistance that an indemnity provider would offer. The articles of association or member agreement of a mutual organisation or the wording of an insurance contact usually prohibits a clinician from taking such steps, unless they have sought advice and been advised to proceed on this basis.
The indemnifier in question finished on a more positive note: “We’re available to offer guidance whenever needed, and we do not consider call volume when setting membership fees. So, please don’t hesitate — call us before taking any action that could jeopardise your position.”
It should be noted that this advice came from a mutual which provides discretionary cover, and that readers would be advised to ascertainin their particular providers’ stance. However particularly in the case of the direction regarding refraining from telling patients that one has sought advice, it was felt that this would be of interest to GDPUK readers.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments