yes i understand tha - you seem quite keen to make that clear. i am not disagree with it.
I do not disagree with this. it makes no difference.
but you haven’t answered the question i asked
as a reminder, taking the example:
finding something out because you saw a Cadet self administering or carrying medication which the event IC was not aware of is not breaking the law - that is spotting something happening with your eyes.
this is not demanding to know anything when the situation has been spotted.
sending them home because the CFAV are not equipped to deal with the medical condition, or have safe guarding concerns about continued involvement (either for the individual or other Cadets) is not breaking the law.
do you agree with this? as you seem keen to impress on something i am not questioning and ignoring the situation i have given.
i would question GDPR cannot be breach if the person who owns the data hands it over.
filling in a TG23 is sharing data - that data must be handled in line with GDPR policy.
but while no one can be forced to give their information, there can be no breach of GDPR if there is no data shared.
forcing someone to share data is a breach of privacy laws, not data protection.
data protection only applied to data held by an organisation on an individual to ensure it remains “need to know” and used for “appropriate reasons”.
forcing someone to hand over their DOB is privacy law
how that DOB is handled is GDPR law
Asking a casualty’s medical history and medication is standard practice for first aiders, it’s also required information on a HSEP 008. Not that the person has to give you the information, but you’re certainly permitted to ask.
If you spotted the cadet taking something - I would go out on a limb to suspect it is not something nefarious.
I would also not jump to conclusions - and try to take a big picture view - is the individual’s behaviour / health dramatically altered…
Correct me if I’m wrong - but the standing order is to simply share concerns with CoC.
Referring to @juliet_mike’s comment that “or send them home…” my point is this viewpoint is overly controlling, overreaching and admin burdensome.
As for punishing an individual for failing to declare a matter they wish to keep private - such as the taking of oral contraceptives.
As adults - it is reasonable to assume that none of us would be bothered - but a shy, introvert young female cadet might be.
Again - I realise it’s a sledgehammer / nut argument - but the disclosure of contraceptives by females was a MAJOR red flag for investigators on Operation Yew Tree - and remains so today.
In a nutshell - CFAVs and anyone acting in Loco Parentis cannot be held responsible for something that they don’t know about.
How about cadets taking homeopathic / natural remedies, vitamins and supplements…, do you want a list of all of those and what they’re for…?
i have had Cadets fill out TG23s because they are vetegarian (not necessary - see TG21 dietary requirements) and have seen TG23 for female CFAVs who have declared HRT medication (again not necessary being on the prescribed list, but the “any condition not listed above” is open ended).
99% of the time i agree - but if a Cadet was spotted “pill popping” it would raise questions and some of those answers might lead to a situation where their attendance is not sustainable. Likewise if someone has valid and legitimate reason to have needles for regular injecting, it could be considered not be secure for these to be held in the individuals luggage, for the individual or the room mates either the sterile ones or the used ones.
while this is not a reason to send someone home, it brings into question a the element of trust - what else are they not sharing?
you haven’t said it yet, so i shall take it for the 1% of the cases where it is more serious, you see no reason (ie legally) why sending someone home would not be valid.
of course if in the case of needles/or non/prescription drugs there were being used for nefarious reasons that should hopefully be clear cut?
if there were muscular conditions which makes participation difficult or indeed dangerous that would also be a clear cut situation.
As an example I have on more than one occasion binned a cadet of a L98A2 IWT course after day 1 as they were simply not capable of cocking the weapon - they were unsafe and could not handle the weapon - they were simply too small for the weapon system. - now this is not a medical condition, this is simply a case of needing to grow a bit more, but there could well be physical conditions which Cadet suffer from that might require additional support or provision made - but not being declared cannot be made in the available time and so the only option is for them to no longer participate.
the Av Med Form 1 is an example where we ask about medical history - it is within everyone’s interest and safety that the information is complete and truthful - yet any question which has a “yes” answer flags further questioning before participation.
As you indicate while we cannot legally ask someone for that information, and there is an advantage for them not being honest (as it may preclude their involvement) should a CFAV find out after submission of the Av Med Form 1 or TG23 that the Cadet has not been honest raises questions about their honesty.
there must be a balance between privacy and “need to know” medical conditions for the safety of everyone involved.
I think there’s a key distinction to be made here.
From my understanding, as a healthcare professional, we (CFAV) can ask for any information we please, as long as we can justify its relevance and ensure it is only stored and used appropriately, and is disposed of once no longer needed. We can make decisions on safety and appropriate supervision based on this information, or on a lack thereof - that is not illegal.
People may withhold this information, however this may impact their participation in activities - again, that is not illegal. People have a right to privacy of information, this is true - but they do not have a right to participation in our activities if we judge it to be unsafe or inappropriate following a risk assessment.
We can’t demand this information, or gain it through any means other than consensual sharing. This consent must be made with appropriate information, including the risk that if we cannot make a reasoned risk assessment it may impair individual participation in activities.
Surely that is not compatible with GDPRs third principle of data minimisation.
Do I as an activity commander of a Road marching course need to know that someone has a kidney removed when they were two years of age especially when they have been signed of by a GP to live a normal life without any restrictions on what they do and are not taking any ongoing medication.
Probably not from your end but it’s the person completing the form who is deciding what to disclose.
If you the person disclosing thinks you need to know then they will add it. If they don’t (because GP said everything is fine) then it doesn’t matter & you don’t need to worry about it.
correct and this is very much the summary of GDPR.
if you have reason to hold it, you can providing it is done so responsibly and within reason. Asking for a medical declaration is justified
no i do not believe it is necessary to list everything. but in some cases it might be suitable.
my father had heart surgery 18 months ago, and so might be useful to know that even though he lives as normal life as could be expected, he could be considered “at risk” in some circumstances, situations and activities.
someone who has had an amputation for instance may be been living with a prosthetic for several years and thus lives a “normal” life might see a benefit in disclosing this for certain events.
Similarly, refusing participation for someone who refuses to declare their medical history, or who gives grounds to suspect that they haven’t been honest about their medical history, is also perfectly justified.
By not having the relevant medical history, any risk assessment and the effectiveness of the relevant mitigation methods are put in doubt. The safety of the event therefore cannot be guaranteed by with the cadet’s participation continuing.
There needs to be a whole discussion around TG Forms in general because (very broad brush stroke here!) they aren’t kept within need to know, it discourages discussion between the OC and Activity Lead because it’s assumed it’ll be on the TG Form, and I made the decision a good few years ago to get cadets to but them in a sealed envelop with OSP on. Many a time had something been on there that people didn’t know what it was (whether medication or a condition) that they then googled and treated the cadet as the internet said or even stopped them going on activities because of it and actually they don’t have A Typical views of it.
We aren’t there yet but to be fully inclusive there needs to be more transparency, and open conversations by Sqb staff to activity staff. And realistic conversations with cadets and their parents about adaptions or limitations because of medication or conditions.
For me in an ideal world we wouldn’t have physical forms, the parent would sign something online (maybe Cdt registers email sent to parent who can electronically sign), then when you hover over the red icon next to a person on sms it gives a over laying title (Allergy, physical, neurodiverse etc),
And we won’t even mention staff TG Forms of they are even filled out, they very rarely are filled out with proper info because they don’t want their peers to know all the in-depth bits
If someone fails to declare medical history, how are you going to know…?
Suspecting they haven’t (“I’ve got nothing against your left leg - unfortunately neither have you…”), is again a bit of a leap - unless you have strong reasons to suspect.
My first question would be “are you a doctor, Sir?”
Trying to put an end to the back and forth:
There is already an overwhelming admin burden on volunteers;
Individuals do have a right to privacy - RAFAC does not have the right to demand a full medical history for ALL activities (despite this being insinuated) - after all being treated for worms is not going to impact a cadet’s ability to participate in bag packing or even participating at Nijmegen…,
The onus is on encouraging the individual to share their info, when requested - so that support and assistance can be provided.
As it stands - an employer can request an employer visit the company doctor to be examined and confirm that they are indeed fit for duty; in the same way the RAF can send staff to the Med Section - but no such provision exists within RAFAC.
RAFAC should be accurately informing participants and their guardians IN ADVANCE of their participation, training and selection for physically demanding activities - the potential injuries and after effects of participation.
RAFAC should also be clearer about what level of pain management / treatment can be offered / condoned.
Personal medical data in the 21st century, should not be being recorded manually still. Access to sensitive personal data like this, should be controlled on a need-to-know basis.
By storing it electronically, alongside Cadet Portal, access could be controlled and monitored, with access limited to the activity commander or their immediate superior.
(Let’s be honest - the chances of needing access to the med forms is virtually nil)
I am aware that there are plenty of scenarios where a mobile data connection is not available - but in such an event one should be able to contact either the NOK or the superior officer by telephone.
(If you are training in an area where there is neither a data or phone signal - I would question the safety of the location - in the event of an emergency!)
A concisely worded disclaimer (certainly more concise than mine) along the lines of “any medical condition that could reasonably affect the individual’s Health, Safety or Wellbeing - as well as that of others, should be disclosed, with information relating to therapeutic treatments including medications, their dosage & means of administration.
Where health is dependent on specific medications (such as Asthma, Diabetes, serious allergies - we would recommend spare devices / medication be held by an appointed member of staff.
Please sign to say if you are happy for RAFAC staff to provide, on request simple household medications - such as ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin, antihistamines (with tick or cross by each).
In the event of prolonged injury or illness, parents / guardians will be contacted to discuss.
Anything beyond this list will require confirmation by a parent / guardian or medical professional.
Please list any and all medications that have had an adverse reaction, or you wish NOT be provided.
Access to medical information is strictly controlled; all data must be updated every six months.
(Separate medical info recordable by the cadet, so that private information is not shared with parents, if that’s the cadet’s wish.)
If a member of RAFAC staff has concerns for the health / wellbeing of an individual, that person MAY be removed from the activity - and prevented from rejoining until they have sought clearance by an appropriate medical professional.
Like I’ve said previously - I’m not good on “concise sentences!” But this sort of approach is inline with most schools and other institutions - to help simplify and maintain a sense of reasonable balance.
As we have discussed at length, the likelihood is the management of routine / minor injuries and malaise - anything more significant is almost certainly going to provoke a trip to local hospital / GP, or the very least - a phone call home to discuss.
correct and this is very much the summary of GDPR.