Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:2/12/2020 Decision Case Number:3892-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service, Tidaholm prison, for communicating a decision that goes against the statutory regulated ban on censorship of the freedom of speech

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5634-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Forensic Psychiatric Care Section in Stockholm for setting up codes of conduct that impose a general ban against verbal communication between patients among other things

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5875-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Flen municipality for not inquiring about an individual’s need to apply for financial assistance pursuant to the Social Service Act

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/10/2020 Decision Case Number:3233-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Olofström municipality for collecting and bringing two siblings to a venue that belonged to the social services, without obtaining the guardians’ consent

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/5/2020 Decision Case Number:O 7-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/31/2020 Decision Case Number:7504-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Nävertorp health care centre, region Sörmland, for responding to a request to disclose data from a patient’s journal without collecting the patient´s consent

    Hide information

    Summary

    An employee at a health care centre disclosed certain data from a patient’s journal during a telephone call to a social welfare worker as the social welfare worker stated that the individual had consented to handing out the data. According to a standardised entry that the individual had signed, the social welfare board was granted the ability to disclose data, from among others, the region, that concerned the individual’s case and that was necessary for the processing of the case. The entry did not specify what case or region that was included.

    The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman express that she holds great understanding of the fact that authorities, on a daily basis, trust instructions from other authorities. When it comes to disclosing data that is included in a patient’s journal, and which usually are of a sensitive matter, the caregiver should make sure that the concerned individuals have consented to the disclosure of data. The caregiver is able to check the documented consent or contact the individual in question. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical towards the fact that the caregiver, in this case, did not take any measures to ensure that the individual had given his/hers consent to disclose data.

    Moreover, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that the documented entry is formulated in such a broad manner that the individual could not embrace the scope of the consequences of the consent. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s understanding, a consent that appears as too broad, when an authority considers handing out confidential data, should lead to a contact with the concerned individual, to make sure that he or she has given their consent to disclose data in the separate case.

  • Date of Decision:1/28/2020 Decision Case Number:3965-2019

    Processing times at the Police Authority have become unacceptably long in two cases on contested payments regarding parking fines

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/27/2020 Decision Case Number:7177-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Migration Agency for dispatching an incomplete copy of a decision to an applicant’s representative

    Read more
Search