Subscribe to Search results

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:

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:

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:

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:

A further revised version of the leaflet was sent to Robin Naysmith.

Published on:

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: