Subscribe to Search results

In a memo from Sarah Bateman to R Windsor, the Minister asked whether it was still the case that there was only a remote chance of anyone getting AIDs from an ordinary blood transfusion. He also requested the omission of a paragraph describing what else was being done, because he was "wary of offering to promise blood screening tests and heat treatments".

Published on:

Ministers were sent a draft health circular to accompany the publication of the AIDS leaflet and asked to agree to its issue.

Published on:

A minute was sent to ministers regarding the Council of Europe's Recommendation R(83)8. It stated that the recommendation did not prevent the UK from continuing to import concentrates from the US.

Published on:

In 1994, the Department of Health's record management guidance became "For the Record", and contained a short leaflet for staff and longer guidance for records managers and reviewing officers ("the 1994 guide").

Published on:

The 1994 guide contained guidance on completing the front cover of the file, which included ticking a box labelled "Branch Review Decision box" before the file was dispatched to the DRO.

Published on:

The 1994 guide mandated that an index slip or file docket also had to be completed and had to be stored separately from the file.

Published on:

The 1994 guide stated that files should be reviewed two years after the date of the last action, but that some branches did not have sufficient storage space to hold files for that long.

Published on:

The 1994 guide outlined the procedure for how the "Branch Review Decision box" was to be used by the person reviewing the file with a view whether to destroy it, retain it for a short period or for a long period.

Published on:

The 1994 guide stated that at the first review stage, documents might be destroyed 2 years from the date of the last document if they have no further administrative value at all, or until any time between 2 - 15 years from the date of the last document if they only have a short to medium term continuing administrative need.

Published on:

A document should have been retained for a second review if it was likely to be needed for administrative reasons, or had potential historical or research value.

Published on:

Documents marked for second review were to be kept for 25 years.

Published on:

In a memo from Graham Hart to all Department of Health staff, it was noted that each staff member was being issued with the "For the Record Leaflet" and needed to be aware of their responsibility.

Published on:

In 1987, the DRO file store moved from London to Nelson, Lancashire. At the time, records management was undertaken by Department of Health officials until 1996, when Hays, a private company, was contracted to undertake all record management.

Published on:

Dr Rejman noted that one of the central complaints presented by the plaintiffs in the HIV litigation was the use of Factor VIII concentrate derived from bought blood as opposed to donated blood.

Published on:

Anita James understood the document retention policy to involve retaining and marking documents for review in 20-25 years if they were important, contained policy review or had historical importance.

Published on:

When the GEB/1 files were identified as missing in 1995, Anita James could not recall doing anything at the time to reconstruct the contents of the files.

Published on:

Anita James accepted that when she was told the GEB/1 volume 4 files had been destroyed, she, along with David Burrage and Dr Rejman should have made sure that all staff involved understood that the remaining files were important, and that they should have been kept with a long review date.

Published on:

Anita James moved departments and handed over to Ruth McEwan due to workload and bullying issues she was dealing with at work.

Published on:

The registered files had not been retrieved from the DRO at any time before January 2000, and there was also no blanket request across the Department of Health to find any relevant files.

Published on:

During a phone call, Mark Wilson asked Anita James about the missing HIV litigation files. Outside of recording the number of missing files in her notebook, Anita James could not recall doing anything further about his request.

Published on: