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.
Rapid

Confidentiality in sexual health

Essential points for quick revision.

Saved on this device
!
Privacy can be overridden only through a justified route

Immediate risk of death or serious harm, abuse, exploitation, coercion, a legal requirement or a court order can justify or require prompt information sharing; routine partner anxiety or family curiosity does not.

Action: Protect immediate safety, seek consent where appropriate, consult a senior or safeguarding lead when time allows, share only relevant information with an appropriate recipient, and record the purpose, legal or public-interest basis and what was disclosed.

Synopsis

Explain and apply sexual-health confidentiality across records, results, family and partner requests, direct care, safeguarding and public-interest disclosure while using the minimum necessary information and a safe contact plan.

  • Explain at the start that sexual-health information is confidential, how it may be used for care and the limited circumstances in which relevant information may be shared.
  • Agree a safe results channel and test it against shared phones, portals, addresses, voicemail, interpreters, bills and proxy access.
  • For direct care, share relevant information with the healthcare team on the usual lawful basis, but respect an objection and reassess safety and consequences.

Key red flags

A child or adult at risk may be experiencing abuse, exploitation, trafficking or coercion and needs a prompt safeguarding assessment rather than an absolute promise of secrecy.

A patient says that texts, portals, post or telephone messages are monitored by a partner or family member; routine contact may cause harm.

Someone requests a partner’s STI or HIV result without authority; relationship status does not confer access to confidential records.

The patient lacks capacity for a specific disclosure decision and information sharing is needed for direct care or protection through the applicable lawful route.

A court order or specific statutory duty is presented; verify scope and disclose only what the lawful requirement covers.

Unsafe communication channel

Shared phones, portals, addresses or proxy access can reveal attendance or results and require an alternative contact plan.

Serious-harm justification

Disclosure without consent may be necessary when likely benefit in preventing death or serious harm outweighs confidentiality interests.

Safeguarding purpose

Relevant information may need prompt sharing with an appropriate agency to protect a child or adult at risk.

Reasoning priorities

01
Disclosure-purpose check

Define exactly why information is proposed to be shared and what outcome it should achieve.

A vague benefit is insufficient; identify direct care, consent, legal requirement, safeguarding or a specific public-interest purpose.

Worked reasoning

Worked case: monitored phoneDeliver results without exposing attendance

An adult awaiting an STI result says their partner checks all texts and voicemail.

  1. Ask which channels, words and times are safe, whether portal or postal access is shared, and whether the surveillance signals coercion or immediate danger.
  2. Record a neutral or no-message instruction and agree a verified call, in-person collection or another confidential route supported by the service.
  3. When the result returns, confirm identity before disclosure and use only the agreed channel; do not leave clinical detail on the monitored device.
  4. Check that the patient received the result and plan, address partner notification separately, and escalate coercion or safety concerns with consent where possible.
Open full textbook Answer 2 questions
Sources and review status6 sources · checked 13 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 13 Sept 2026; clinical approval remains outstanding.

Authoring stateRapid draftClinical stateAwaiting reviewJurisdictionUnited Kingdom