So do those Jerk Aussie DJs deserve to be fired?

[Sleipnir]

Once again the incident is not their "trickery" but, rather, the second nurses' failure to act professionally and refuse to release information to a stranger over the phone.

Once again - IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE - if you do NOT know who you are talking to you shut up and say "no, due to privacy legislation I cannot provide you with that information.

In case you haven't noticed, those DJs impersonated the Queen and her son. How good were the impersonation idk, I don't even know what the queen or her son sounds like.

[msj]

In case you haven't noticed, those DJs impersonated the Queen and her son. How good were the impersonation idk, I don't even know what the queen or her son sounds like.

So?

Why do you think we have privacy laws?

Why do you think it is so important to verify who you are talking to and who you are about to provide information to?

I have enough information about hundreds of clients at my disposal for people to ruin lives.

If I was as unprofessional as the second nurse something like this could happen in my office:

Fraudster posing as one of my clients phones me: Uh, can you print out the last 3 years of tax information and send it to me by email?

Me: Sure thing, I'll do that right away. Where can I send it to?

Fraudster: Send it to this hotmail account....

Me: Sure thing. I'll get to that right away and let's not bother with encryption on this. I'll just send it as a PDF.

Fraudster: Thanks man.

End of phone call.

Result - fraudster takes the info (SIN number, possibly bank information etc) goes out and gets a mortgage, collects the proceeds, never is seen again.

In the meantime, my real client is left wondering how he was exposed to this crime and to this invasion of privacy.

While you are not knowing how good an impersonation my fictional example is what I am saying is that it is irrelevant.

I have to expect that people are going to try and trick me to get to information that they can use for nefarious purposes.

If I do not expect people to want to try and trick me then I am not doing a very good job trying to protect my clients' information, now am I?

You do not get tricked by following certain procedures which is why the above example would never happen to me in real life.

If you do get tricked then you face the consequences. You don't hide behind this BS of "they tricked me."

If you're a professional you do not allow yourself to be tricked.

Listen to it above and you will see that the nurse did nothing to verify any identity which is just plain unprofessional. PERIOD.

Edited December 24, 2012 by msj

[betsy]

Listen to it above and you will see that the nurse did nothing to verify any identity which is just plain unprofessional. PERIOD.

What could she have said to verify the identity of the caller? Pretend to be the nurse (the second nurse).....

Tell us what she should've said.

[msj]

What could she have said to verify the identity of the caller? Pretend to be the nurse (the second nurse).....

Tell us what she should've said.

I have already stated that she should not have said anything.

She should have said "no" from the get go.

She could have asked the "Queen" to talk to her own daughter-in-law herself.

Oh, BTW, I thought you "had nothing more to say?"

[betsy]

I have already stated that she should not have said anything.

She should have said "no" from the get go.

She could have asked the "Queen" to talk to her own daughter-in-law herself.

Do the dialogue. How do you say it? Here's the transcript:

GREIG: Kate my darling, are you there?

NURSE: Good morning, ma’am, this is the nurse speaking. How may I help you?

GREIG: Hello, I’m just after my granddaughter Kate. I wanted to see how her little tummy bug is going.

NURSE: She’s sleeping at the moment. And she had an uneventful night. And sleep is good for her. As we speak, she’s been getting some fluids to rehydrate her. She was quite dehydrated when she came in. But she’s stable at the moment.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/transcript-djs-prank-call-london-nurse-article-1.1215498#ixzz2G03pXke3

Oh, BTW, I thought you "had nothing more to say?"

I thought I had nothing more to say....

[msj]

Do the dialogue. How do you say it? Here's the transcript:

GREIG: Kate my darling, are you there?

NURSE: Good morning, ma’am, this is the nurse speaking. How may I help you?

GREIG: Hello, I’m just after my granddaughter Kate. I wanted to see how her little tummy bug is going.

Me: Um, who am I talking to?

Them: This is the Queen! And Prince Charles (and the little yappy dogs in the background).

Me: I'm sorry but due to privacy concerns I am unable to discuss any medical information about Kate by phone. I will let her know you called and ask her to contact you when she is available.

Them: blah blah blah.

Me: blah blah blah (effectively not giving any information out)

Them - getting bored: blah blah blah.

Me: I'm sorry, but if you want more information you will have to wait.

Them: blah blah blah.

Me: I'm sorry, but I am unable to provide you with any further information.

Etc....

It's not like it is hard to say no.

[betsy]

The hospital had to fend off accusations of lax security and officials were mocked by British media for falling for such a stunt. “How Could they Fall for this Hoax?” asked the Daily Mail, which claimed the Royals were furious that the Duchess’s privacy could be so easily compromised. The hospital tried to respond, accusing the radio announcers of a deplorable prank and vowing to review its procedures.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-royals/fallout-from-nurses-death-keeps-mounting/article6144070/

Well, you've got to wonder how the pranksters managed to duped these two nurses....and why the second nurse easily gave the information.

Either the nurse was negligent.....or the hospital security didn't properly train the staff assigned to the royals.

We'll know from the inquiry.

[betsy]

And this article mentioned that this wasn't part of the nurse's training:

Her crime was nothing more than gullibility at the vulnerable hour of 5:30 a.m. in the morning after a presumably long night shift doing a task which wasn't in her nurse training. Not a hanging offense in the eyes of the public, the media or the royal family. (Though we don't know what the embarrassed hospital management actually felt.)

http://www.huffingto..._b_2266447.html

I am seriously looking at the hospital for some answers.

Also,

I've read that the deceased nurse attempted suicide twice last year, and was admitted to a psychiatric ward and is on anti-depressant pills. I don't know how true that is....but if it's true....isn't that too soon to be doing her duties as a nurse?

Edited December 24, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

And this article mentioned that this wasn't part of the nurse's training:

http://www.huffingto..._b_2266447.html

I am seriously looking at the hospital for some answers.

Also,

I've read that the deceased nurse attempted suicide twice last year, and was admitted to a psychiatric ward and is on anti-depressant pills. I don't know how true that is....but if it's true....isn't that too soon to be doing her duties as a nurse?

This link is to an opinion piece.

IOW, this is not "journalism" it is just someone's opinion.

Someone who likely does not understand that if you are a professional who is supposed to conduct yourself under a code of ethics and you break that code of ethics, then, as a professional, it is not acceptable to blame "improper training" for your lack of professionalism.

That is why being a professional is so hard: you have to conduct yourself as a professional.

[Bonam]

That is why being a professional is so hard: you have to conduct yourself as a professional.

Do these nurses think of themselves as professionals? It is my impression that a lot of jobs, such as nurses and teachers, which may perhaps have been thought of as professionals a few decades ago, now are regarded (and regard themselves) as no more than unionized commodity labor.

[msj]

Do these nurses think of themselves as professionals? It is my impression that a lot of jobs, such as nurses and teachers, which may perhaps have been thought of as professionals a few decades ago, now are regarded (and regard themselves) as no more than unionized commodity labor.

Well, in Canada they do - hence the "registered" in their name.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in UK although every time I go looking for a code of ethics for nurses in the UK I keep coming up with the Canadian version.

Nevertheless, I swore an oath when I became an accountant and part of that oath is to conduct oneself appropriately under the code of ethics.

I can't see it being any different for other professions.

That's why we are in a "profession."

But you do have a point - people are so ignorant on what it means to be a professional that I think even people who are supposed to be professional do no understand their responsibilities and are just too lax at times.

[betsy]

Well, in Canada they do - hence the "registered" in their name.

I'm pretty sure it's the same in UK although every time I go looking for a code of ethics for nurses in the UK I keep coming up with the Canadian version.

Nevertheless, I swore an oath when I became an accountant and part of that oath is to conduct oneself appropriately under the code of ethics.

I can't see it being any different for other professions.

That's why we are in a "profession."

But you do have a point - people are so ignorant on what it means to be a professional that I think even people who are supposed to be professional do no understand their responsibilities and are just too lax at times.

You can swear oath after oath after oath as to ethics and proper conduct - but when you're faced with something you're not prepared for or not specially trained for, those oaths won't matter.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot look at the queen as just another common person - at least not in the eyes of those who live and work in UK. It may leave you unfazed or unflustered before the presence of a monarch - but we cannot assume that the same will be for others.

Edited December 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

This link is to an opinion piece.

IOW, this is not "journalism" it is just someone's opinion.

Someone who likely does not understand that if you are a professional who is supposed to conduct yourself under a code of ethics and you break that code of ethics, then, as a professional, it is not acceptable to blame "improper training" for your lack of professionalism.

That is why being a professional is so hard: you have to conduct yourself as a professional.

As far as I know, the nurse is not blaming improper training. It is the public - or the media - who are questioning about the seeming lapse in security.

It is indeed questionable why not one - but two nurses - were easily duped into giving access (to the room), and access to private information of someone like Kate Middleton - not only is she a royalty, but whom everyone knows is a magnet to the media with massive celebrity-status.

Either these two nurses were both very incompetent and negligent....or there is a serious break in security measures. That will come out in the inquiry. That is one of 20 questions that the husband of the deceased had given to the hospital officials - the measures of security for someone like Kate.

[msj]

You can swear oath after oath after oath as to ethics and proper conduct - but when you're faced with something you're not prepared for or not specially trained for, those oaths won't matter.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot look at the queen as just another common person - at least not in the eyes of those who live and work in UK. It may leave you unfazed or unflustered before the presence of a monarch - but we cannot assume that the same will be for others.

I really don't know why you have such a need to deflect the accountability for this incident to anyone or anything but the nurse who actually, and inappropriately, gave out private information that she should not have given out.

She was responsible for the information, she failed to safe-guard it and, therefore, has faced a reprimand for it (which, presumably, is appropriate for her professional failure).

It's not that big of deal - professionals make mistakes everyday, get caught or admit to it, take responsibility, get reprimanded, and then move on with their life.

As for oaths - to a professional they most certainly do matter.

If I fail in my professional duty and break an oath in my ethical code for whatever reason I will not feel better for any of the reasons or excuses you have tried to provide for this nurse.

If it was ignorance I would be mortified with being so ignorant.

If I made an error in judgement due to having stars in my eyes then I would be embarrassed by my inability to keep a level head and make sound judgments.

The point is that professionals take oaths and these oaths do mean something.

They mean that we are supposed to know our duty, that we take responsibility for our professional development so that we are not ignorant and make fewer errors in judgement, and that we then conduct our duty in a professional manner day in and day out.

This nurse probably is humiliated for her failure and she hopefully will have learned something from it which is hard way to take professional development.

But she most certainly deserves a reprimand because she failed in her professional duty and any reasons you can come up with as possible excuses are nothing more than poor excuses to deflect responsibility from an individual to anything else.

[msj]

As far as I know, the nurse is not blaming improper training. It is the public - or the media - who are questioning about the seeming lapse in security.

It is indeed questionable why not one - but two nurses - were easily duped into giving access (to the room), and access to private information of someone like Kate Middleton - not only is she a royalty, but whom everyone knows is a magnet to the media with massive celebrity-status.

Oh, I agree that this nurse is likely not blaming the training.

If she is going to start acting like a professional (since she certainly wasn't when she was on the phone with the "Queen") then she would admit that her actions were poor, that she is sorry for her lack of professionalism, and she will take her lumps and move on.

No, the problem is that people like you who have never taken a professional oath in your life, who is completely ignorant as to what it means to take such an oath and to conduct oneself as a professional, who thinks that we professionals can just fall back and use typical excuses that ordinary people get away with.

Professionals must be held to higher standards because we are in positions that require higher standards.

Trying to deflect accountability away from her lack of professionalism is a cop out.

If I was hearing these excuses from other professionals then I would be concerned.

But hearing it from people who don't know any better shouldn't surprise me.

[betsy]

I really don't know why you have such a need to deflect the accountability for this incident to anyone or anything but the nurse who actually, and inappropriately, gave out private information that she should not have given out.

It's not about deflecting. It's more about being fair. How can you make any fair judgement if you don't know the full details. The nurses' reputation are being unfairly smeared.

The least we could do is wait for the results of the inquiry. People have been questioning the hospital about the seeming lax in security....and it is indeed questionable. I would probably go along with you and declare incompetence and negligence on the part of one nurse making a huge mistake.

But we're talking about two nurses who were easily duped. Of course it poses the question: how come?

[betsy]

Oh, I agree that this nurse is likely not blaming the training.

If she is going to start acting like a professional (since she certainly wasn't when she was on the phone with the "Queen") then she would admit that her actions were poor, that she is sorry for her lack of professionalism, and she will take her lumps and move on.

No, the problem is that people like you who have never taken a professional oath in your life, who is completely ignorant as to what it means to take such an oath and to conduct oneself as a professional, who thinks that we professionals can just fall back and use typical excuses that ordinary people get away with.

Professionals must be held to higher standards because we are in positions that require higher standards.

Trying to deflect accountability away from her lack of professionalism is a cop out.

If I was hearing these excuses from other professionals then I would be concerned.

But hearing it from people who don't know any better shouldn't surprise me.

Whether you're a professional or not, you still have to use your common sense. Especially when one is supposed to be a professional, it is expected that he's sensible, no?

Like I said, how can you make a fair judgement when you yourself, agreed, that you don't know the full details?

msj:

Yes, they are different over there.

I hope privacy laws around something like this would allow one to keep the Queen's nose out of someone else's privacy but who knows.

I think it is fair to look at the hospital to see if they had policies in place to deal with whatever privacy legislation the UK may have related to this. Sure, that's reasonable.

I don't know the policies of the hospital so I do not know to what extent either nurse was reprimanded and to what extent they should have been reprimanded.

http://www.mapleleaf...ic=22077&st=105

Okay, let's give an analogy:

As an accountant, how can you CREDIBLY prepare someone else's tax return if you don't have the full details of her finances??? What? You file it anyway....and say, "oooops" when she gets snagged?

As a professional, if you operate without having all pertinent information....you don't have credibility. You become negligent and incompetent in your profession. In other words, you become a "quack." Your oath and title would mean nothing.

Like I said, the question is not only centered on the nurses. As you described them as the "gate-keepers," - so the question is, were they given proper training as ROYAL "gate-keepers," which include how to handle and communicate properly with dignitaries and the royalty. I'm wondering as to why there seems to be nothing simple such as a password to use for verification?

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

If I made an error in judgement due to having stars in my eyes then I would be embarrassed by my inability to keep a level head and make sound judgments.

Or, you weren't given proper training how to handle the royalty, thus you fumbled and got frazzled.

[msj]

Do these nurses think of themselves as professionals? It is my impression that a lot of jobs, such as nurses and teachers, which may perhaps have been thought of as professionals a few decades ago, now are regarded (and regard themselves) as no more than unionized commodity labor.

Ok, looks like I have found the UK code.

I'm going to use Bonam's post as a spring board to discuss the code (so some of what I say is related to Bonam's post above and much of it is about my argument that the second nurse did not act professionally and should be held as primarily responsible for the release of confidential information since that information did, in fact, come out of her mouth).

Even if these professionals take on this attitude, their own code makes it clear who is responsible:

As a professional, you are personally accountable for actions and omissions in your practice and must always be able to justify your decisions. You must always act lawfully, whether those laws relate to your professional practice or personal life.

Failure to comply with this code may bring your fitness to practise into question and endanger your registration.

This quote is pretty standard - any professional code will make our responsibilities clear and this one does a fine job.

I will recommend that Betsy read the above quote several times to fully digest it (no, I'm not being snarky - I have read my own Code so many times that understanding this type of stuff is a breeze).

Now for confidentiality:

Respect people's confidentiality

• 5. You must respect people's right to confidentiality
  
• 6. You must ensure people are informed about how and why information is shared by those who will be providing their care
  
• 7. You must disclose information if you believe someone may be at risk of harm, in line with the law of the country in which you are practising
  

Pretty general and fairly typical.

Remember, a code is meant to be fairly simple and it is not rocket science to understand that respecting one's right to confidentiality means do not talk about a client's information with anyone unless you are in an appropriate setting to do so.

Now, as to training, the thing about being a professional is that we have certain responsibilities to maintaining our own professional development.

In my case I get my accounting designations' quarterly and bi-monthly publications, I subscribe to certain Public Practice Manuals and tax update services, and this is on top of taking at least 20 hours of verifiable courses each year (60 hours over a 3 year cycle of which 4 hours must be a specific ethics course).

I doubt that the nurses are that much different in this regard.

Here is what their code states about this:

Keep your skills and knowledge up to date

• 38. You must have the knowledge and skills for safe and effective practice when working without direct supervision
  
• 39. You must recognise and work within the limits of your competence
  
• 40. You must keep your knowledge and skills up to date throughout your working life
  
• 41. You must take part in appropriate learning and practice activities that maintain and develop your competence and performance
  

Note here that "knowledge and skills" does not only mean "medical skills."

It means everything that one does to practice as a professional.

IOW, if it is important to your profession you better know about it because you are responsible to know about it.

Which brings us towards the end of the code:

Act with integrity

• 49. You must adhere to the laws of the country in which you are practising
  

So this is mentioned towards the end of the code just like it was mentioned (and quoted) above at the beginning of the code.

IOW - a professional must know the laws that touch on their practice.

That privacy law brought in in the late '90's? Better read it and understand it given that your own code talks about confidentiality.

Then we get to the "Uphold the reputation of your profession" part:

60. You must cooperate with the media only when you can confidently protect the confidential information and dignity of those in your care

So, it is all within the code that the nurse has sworn an oath on.

That any nurse is supposed to understand and for which he/she is supposed to keep up to date on through continued reading and professional development that the nurse is responsible to maintain.

This is the world that professionals operate in which is why it is so important that the second nurse is held responsible for her lack of professionalism.

If any professional swears an oath to uphold a code they ought to know the code and be practicing the code every single day that they practice because, if they are not doing that, then one day they may end up facing disciplinary hearings from their own professional organization.

[msj]

Or, you weren't given proper training how to handle the royalty, thus you fumbled and got frazzled.

As I have already stated from the nurses' own code:

You must cooperate with the media only when you can confidently protect the confidential information and dignity of those in your care

If I do get frazzled and fumble, like this nurse did, then I would face a reprimand not only from the hospital but from my own professional organization.

IOW - professionals do make mistakes and they should be reprimanded for those mistakes.

[msj]

It's not about deflecting. It's more about being fair. How can you make any fair judgement if you don't know the full details. The nurses' reputation are being unfairly smeared.

How can you fairly defend her without knowing all the facts?

And you most certainly do not know all of the facts since you are completely ignorant as to what it means to conduct oneself as a professional for which I have tried to educate you on.

The least we could do is wait for the results of the inquiry. People have been questioning the hospital about the seeming lax in security....and it is indeed questionable. I would probably go along with you and declare incompetence and negligence on the part of one nurse making a huge mistake.

But we're talking about two nurses who were easily duped. Of course it poses the question: how come?

There is no reason people should not be discussing this nurses' poor professionalism now.

It is a very valuable learning tool that all professionals can learn from - basically to reinforce the importance of keeping confidential information confidential even if one is a weak-minded person who gets stars in his/her eyes and then willingly blabs too much.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Okay, let's give an analogy:

As an accountant, how can you CREDIBLY prepare someone else's tax return if you don't have the full details of her finances??? What? You file it anyway....and say, "oooops" when she gets snagged?

I don't see how this analogy is relevant.

The relevant analogy is where I get a phone call from someone pretending to be my client (or a relative of my client for whom I have a signed consent form on file to release information to) and I get duped to release the client's info to someone who I should not be releasing that info to.

We have already gone through that scenario and it shows just how easy it is to say "no" to anyone.

Like I said, the question is not only centered on the nurses. As you described them as the "gate-keepers," - so the question is, were they given proper training as ROYAL "gate-keepers," which include how to handle and communicate properly with dignitaries and the royalty. I'm wondering as to why there seems to be nothing simple such as a password to use for verification?

Why do they need "proper training as ROYAL gatekeepers?"

Keeping information private and confidential is keeping it P&C.

Being the Queen does not give her magical properties where one should just ignore their professional code and answer any questions without any thought given to whether or not it is appropriate to provide her with any information in the first place.

[betsy]

How can you fairly defend her without knowing all the facts?

It's clear you're lost. Scroll back and re-read our exchanges.

[betsy]

Why do they need "proper training as ROYAL gatekeepers?"

You're naive. If you don't get it, or understand what is being said, and what had been explained.....I can't help you there.

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

You're naive. If you don't get it, or understand what is being said, and what had been explained.....I can't help you there.

That's right Betsy - I'm the one who has "lost" and who just doesn't "understand."

No you can't help me because you still do not understand what it means to conduct oneself in a professional manner.