Colleague Consultation · Intermediate · Communication

Managing a Colleague's Confidentiality Breach on Social Media

Practise this PLAB 2 colleague consultation station on Confidentiality Breach. 8-minute voice AI simulation with feedback on all 3 marking domains.

Clinical scenario

You are an FY2 doctor in a busy teaching hospital. You are the same grade as your colleague Gemma Bridges, a junior doctor on the ward, who posted a patient case on her private Facebook account two days ago. The post was discovered when another junior doctor saw it. The case details included identifiable information, a photo of a clinical chart, and comments about the patient's appearance. As a colleague at the same level, you have been asked by the ward consultant to have an initial conversation with Gemma about this serious confidentiality breach. Your colleague Gemma Bridges, a junior doctor on the ward, posted a patient case on her private Facebook account two days ago. The post was discovered when another junior doctor saw it. The case details included identifiable information, a photo of a clinical chart, and comments about the patient's appearance. You need to address this serious confidentiality breach professionally and explore the underlying factors.

Background notes: PMH: Nil

What this station tests

  • GMC social media guidance: no identifiable patient information, even without names
  • Contextual identification: age, condition, and ward can identify a patient even without a name
  • Immediate post deletion: the first practical step
  • Self-reporting to educational supervisor: better than being reported by someone else
  • Duty of candour: the patient may need to be informed if the breach is significant

How to use your 8 minutes

  • 0-1 min — Introduction: Introduce yourself and your role. State the purpose of the consultation clearly.
  • 1-3 min — Present Case: Use SBAR structure. Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation. Be concise and relevant.
  • 3-5 min — Discussion: Discuss differential diagnosis and management. Listen to colleague's perspective. Share concerns professionally.
  • 5-7 min — Agree Plan: Agree on management plan. Clarify roles and responsibilities. Discuss escalation criteria.
  • 7-8 min — Closing: Summarise agreed actions. Confirm documentation. Arrange follow-up communication.

Consultation approach

The opening

A colleague posting identifiable patient information on social media is a serious professional breach. Gemma is 26, an FY2, posted about a 'fascinating case' on Instagram with enough detail to identify the patient (age, condition, ward). She does not realise the severity. Open with: 'Gemma, I need to talk to you about something important. Can we speak privately?'

Core approach

Explain the problem clearly. 'You posted about a patient on Instagram. Even without using their name, the details you included (age, condition, ward) could identify them. This is a breach of patient confidentiality and a serious professional issue.' She may not realise the severity: social media feels informal, but GMC guidance is clear.

GMC social media guidance: doctors must not post identifiable patient information on social media. Even anonymised posts can be identifiable if enough contextual detail is included. This could lead to GMC investigation, disciplinary action, and damage to patient trust.

She must delete the post immediately. Then: self-report to her educational supervisor. The incident may need Datix reporting and the patient may need to be informed (duty of candour if the breach is significant).

Closing and safety netting

Support her through the process. 'I know this was not malicious. You were excited about the case. But the rules exist to protect patients, and this needs to be addressed properly.' Encourage self-reporting (better than being reported). Offer to accompany her to the educational supervisor.

Advise: delete the post now, inform educational supervisor, review GMC social media guidance. If the patient is identifiable: they should be informed. Follow-up: check in with her after the conversation with her supervisor.

How examiners mark this station

Examiners will assess both Domain 1 (Data Gathering) and Domain 2 (Clinical Management) as primary: clarity and structure of your case presentation, appropriateness of your clinical reasoning, and whether you agree a clear plan. Domain 3 (Interpersonal Skills) assesses professional communication and collaborative approach.

Domain 1 (Supporting)

Scores well: Breach identified. Identifiability assessed. GMC guidance known.

Costs marks: Not recognising the breach.

Domain 2 (Primary focus)

Scores well: Post deleted. Self-reporting encouraged. Educational supervisor informed. Patient notification considered. GMC guidance reviewed.

Costs marks: Not addressing. Not deleting. Not reporting.

Domain 3 (Primary focus)

Scores well: Direct but supportive. Not punitive. Offering to accompany. Acknowledging it was not malicious.

Costs marks: Punitive. Public confrontation. Not offering support.

Common examiner feedback (and how to fix it)

Did not communicate clinical information effectively

Fix: Use SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) every time. State clearly what you need from the colleague at the outset.

Did not identify the patient's problems and/or did not develop a management plan adequately

Fix: Before ending, confirm: What is the plan? Who is doing what? When will you communicate next? Document the agreed plan.

Common mistakes in this station

  1. Ignoring it because she is a friend: confidentiality breaches must be addressed regardless of relationship
  2. Not insisting on post deletion: every moment the post remains live increases the breach
  3. Being punitive without supportive: she made an error, not a malicious act

Resitting PLAB 2?

If colleague consultation stations have been challenging, practise the SBAR format until it is automatic. The most common issue is failing to clearly state why you are consulting the colleague and what you need from them. Be direct about your clinical question.

Example opening

Hello, this is Dr [Name], I'm the FY2 on [ward]. Thank you for taking my call. I'd like to discuss a patient I'm looking after and get your advice on management.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best way to structure the confidentiality breach discussion with a colleague?

A colleague posting identifiable patient information on social media is a serious professional breach. Gemma is 26, an FY2, posted about a 'fascinating case' on Instagram with enough detail to identify the patient (age, condition, ward). She does not realise the severity.

What does a strong performance look like to the examiner in this station?

Strong performances show: Breach identified. Identifiability assessed. GMC guidance known. Weak performances: Not recognising the breach.

What is the biggest pitfall in this confidentiality breach station?

Ignoring it because she is a friend: confidentiality breaches must be addressed regardless of relationship.

How should I prepare for confidentiality breach if I have never seen it in practice?

Structure beats experience here. Focus on contextual identification: age, condition, and ward can identify a patient even without a name. The written guidance on this page covers the full approach, and practising the consultation aloud builds the fluency the examiner is listening for.

Related cases