Doctor’s Passport

Find your next topic

Explore the current textbook

Available drafts · Clinical review pending
Membership
Educational draft · awaiting clinical reviewUse Rapid for revision, not patient-care decisions. Check current national and local guidance and the BNF or BNFC before acting.
RapidMLASJTMSRAMRCPMRCGP

Doctors and social media

Essential points for quick revision.

Saved on this device

Synopsis

Use social media with professional judgment by protecting confidentiality and boundaries, communicating health information honestly, declaring relevant interests, responding safely to patient contact and recognising that private or anonymous content may spread.

  • GMC professional standards apply online as they do elsewhere. Personal accounts, private groups, disappearing messages, pseudonyms and closed audiences do not remove duties of confidentiality, respect, honesty or boundaries.
  • Never post identifiable patient information without explicit consent and the required safeguards. Combining apparently harmless details can identify a patient, especially in rare cases, small communities or recent events.
  • When discussing health or healthcare as a medical professional, provide context that lets readers assess claims and usually identify who you are. Take reasonable steps to avoid false or misleading information and do not overstate qualifications.

Reasoning priorities

01
Identifiability assessment

Decide whether a patient or close contact could recognise the case from all available details.

Consider the mosaic effect, images, dates, location, rare features and cross-platform content. If identification is plausible, do not post without explicit informed consent and the relevant recording or education safeguards.

Worked reasoning

Worked casePosting a memorable clinical encounter

A trainee wants to share a learning point from a rare emergency seen that day, omitting the patient’s name but including age, town, unusual occupation and a distinctive radiograph.

  1. Assess the combined details and recognise that rarity, timing, location, occupation and image make identification plausible even without a name.
  2. Clarify the educational purpose and whether it can be achieved with a generic principle, approved teaching process or substantially altered non-patient example.
  3. If identifiable material remains necessary, obtain explicit informed consent and follow organisational, confidentiality and visual-recording requirements; consent does not remove duties of dignity or accuracy.
  4. Final action: do not publish the proposed post; use a non-identifiable generic learning point or formal approved teaching route.
  5. Verification: ask a supervisor or information-governance lead to review residual identification risk and check that no draft, cloud image or message has been shared.
Open full textbook Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status4 sources · checked 7 Sept 2026 · clinical review pending
Sources

Sources and review status

National guidance is shown before implementation-dependent detail. Apply principles in context and verify current guidance when a decision affects care. Source check completed 7 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom