Prior to her death, the complainant's sister lived in a rest home. The sister was admitted to hospital and died there. The hospital notified the Medical Officer of Health that death was due to 'acute respiratory failure secondary to miliary tuberculosis'. The Health Act 1956 requires the Medical Officer of Health to be notified where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is suffering from a notifiable disease, such as tuberculosis.

Subsequently, an article appeared in a local newspaper about the death. Although the sister was not named, the rest home was, and some detail was given about her illness. The complainant alleged that the Medical Officer of Health had disclosed inaccurate information. (The complainant made a separate complaint about a disclosure to the newspaper by a staff member of the rest home. That complaint is not dealt with in this case note.)

I formed the opinion that the complaint concerning the Medical Officer of Health did not have substance.

Disclosure

The newspaper asked the Medical Officer of Health about the death of a rest home resident from tuberculosis. The Medical Officer of Health confirmed he had been notified that a person had died of 'acute respiratory failure secondary to miliary tuberculosis'. He also confirmed that a routine public health investigation was under way. He did not name the woman or the rest home.

I accepted the Medical Officer of Health's evidence and formed the opinion that he did not disclose information about an identifiable individual. Rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code limits the disclosure of personal information only when it is information about an identifiable individual. The Code does not limit the disclosure of other information.

Even if the Medical Officer of Health had disclosed personal information, I was not satisfied that rule 11 would have determined the situation. The Medical Officer of Health was subject to the Official Information Act 1982. The fact that there was a public health investigation resulting from the woman's death was 'official information' for the purposes of that Act. Section 5 of the Official Information Act requires official information to be made available on request unless there is good reason for withholding it. Although the Official Information Act enables information to be withheld on the grounds of privacy, that is a decision that must be taken by the organisation concerned. When responding to the media request, the Medical Officer of Health appeared to have been fulfilling his obligations under the Official Information Act.

Accuracy

Rule 8 of the Health Information Privacy Code requires agencies to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they propose to use is accurate. Rule 8, like most of the Code, applies only to information about living individuals. Therefore, it had not been breached in this case.

Even if the woman had been alive, I was satisfied that the Medical Officer of Health would not have breached rule 8. He relied upon the accuracy of the information given by the hospital and seemed entitled to do so.

I discontinued my investigation.

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Medical Officer of Health - Disclosure of fact and cause of death in response to media enquiry - Identity of deceased individual not disclosed - Official Information Act 1982, s 5 - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 11

Accuracy of personal information - Medical Officer of Health - Disclosure of fact and cause of death - Steps taken to ensure accuracy before disclosure - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 8

November 2001