Skip to main content
Show — Main navigation
Hide — Main navigation
Home
About
The Chair
Inquiry Team
Expert Groups
Inquiry Intermediaries
Core Participants
Legal Representatives
Financial Reports
Approach
Terms of reference
List of Issues
Statements of approach
Inquiry Principles
News
News
Newsletter Archive
Reports
The Inquiry Report
Additional Compensation report
First Interim Report
Second Interim Report
Compensation Framework Study
Evidence
Evidence
Hearings Archive
Compensation
Support
NHS Psychological Support
Confidential Psychological Support
Support Groups
Infected Blood Support Schemes
Treatment and aftercare
Medical Evidence
Expenses Guidance
Contact us
Search
Accessibility Tool
Zoom in
Zoom out
Reset
Contrast
Accessibility tool
Listen
Get in touch
Quick Exit
Subscribe to Search results
Search
Sort your search results
Relevance
Title
Changed
Lord Glenarthur commented in relation to the revision of the AIDS leaflet "We must take all sensible steps to prevent this disease being transmitted".
Published on:
24 September, 2024
Kenneth Clarke was "content for the leaflet to be revised and distributed".
Published on:
24 September, 2024
Dr Smithies provided a note summarising the current situation on AIDS as requested by the Secretary of State for Health.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
A memo from M Nolan to Sarah Bateman and S Ghagan confirmed decision making in respect of a revised AIDS leaflet.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
A memo from Alun Williams to Christopher Joyce reported that there were incidents of UK blood being given by donors, that were found to be positive for HTLV-3.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
The revised leaflet with the Working Group's suggestions was sent to Kenneth Clarke for approval. The Working Group's view was it was not necessary to adopt the stronger line proposed by the Information Division.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
On a memo from S Ghagan to Sarah Bateman, a hand-written note questioned whether Dr Abrams' leaflet was the currently accepted version.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
A memo to Kenneth Clarke's private office stressed the desirability of action being taken on the Working Group's approved leaflet in the near future.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
In a memo from Robin Naysmith to Dr Abrams, he communicated his preference for the Information Division's leaflet, and asked for officials to "co-operate with Information Division in producing a third (and hopefully final) version of the leaflet based upon the ID text to take account of any recent significant developments, and amended as necessary to ensure medical accuracy".
Published on:
24 September, 2024
A further revised version of the leaflet was sent to Robin Naysmith.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
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:
24 September, 2024
Ministers were sent a draft health circular to accompany the publication of the AIDS leaflet and asked to agree to its issue.
Published on:
24 September, 2024
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:
24 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
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:
20 September, 2024
Pagination
First page
First
Previous page
Previous
…
Page
2380
Page
2381
Page
2382
Page
2383
Current page
2384
Page
2385
Page
2386
Page
2387
Page
2388
…
Next page
Next
Last page
Last