Table 10 Instances of ‘potential’ PIs: none of which is a breach as none occurred in isolation
| Â | Number of instances | Reasons |
|---|---|---|
Number of ‘potential’ PI instances in the notes (within 500 notes) | 89 | 70.9% due to misspellings; 20.9% due to PIs being un-entered in source |
Type of Potential PIs | Â | Â |
Patient Nickname | 20 | Un-entered PI |
Patient First Name | 18 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Old Address Post Code | 14 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Patient Date of Birth | 13 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Patient Contact Number | 2 | Un-entered PI |
Patient Last Name | 10 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Old Address Line 1 | 5 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Patient Middle Name | 4 | Un-entered PI |
Old Address Line 2 | 2 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |
Old Address Line 3 | 1 | Un-entered PI or misspellings |