Decision
Ms A and National Maternity Hospital
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160094-B9W1Y2
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160094-B9W1Y2
Published on
Whether the NMH was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further records relating to the applicant’s birth on the ground that the records sought no longer exist or cannot be found
1 September 2025
On 2 January 2025, the applicant made a request to the NMH for records from 1960 relating to her mother’s confinement and post-confinement, as well as details regarding her own (the applicant’s) birth and care at the hospital and any other information the hospital may have in connection with herself and her mother. On 12 February 2025, the NMH granted the applicant’s request, releasing one record, a copy of the Delivery Ward Extract. The NMH said that prior to 1968 the hospital holds no records with the exception of the Delivery Ward Extract. On 19 February 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the NMH’s decision. On 9 April 2025, the NMH refused access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no further records exist. The NMH said that a decision was made by the Hospital in 1984 to destroy all medical records prior to 1968 with the exception of the Delivery Ward Extract. On 26 June 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the hospital’s decision.
During the course of this Office’s review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the NMH’s submissions in which it outlined the searches it had conducted and its reasons for concluding that no further records exist or can be found. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter, which she duly did.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by the applicant and the NMH. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the NMH was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further records sought by the applicant on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
The applicant described the decision by NMH to destroy medical records prior to 1968 as outrageous and said that the short delivery ward extract that had been released to her by NMH was wholly unacceptable. While I acknowledge the applicant’s disappointment about the destruction of records from the time of her birth, it is important to note that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints or to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally. This means that we have no role in examining the appropriateness of the decision taken by the hospital in relation to the destruction of pre-1968 medical records.
Section 15(1)(a) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request when the records sought either do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. The Commissioner’s role in such cases is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether the decision is justified. This means that the Commissioner must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker in arriving at their decision. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, the NMH outlined that it had released a delivery ward register extract to the applicant and stated that this was the only relevant record that it currently holds in relation to the applicant’s request. According to the NMH, this delivery ward extract was sourced in the relevant delivery ward register held in its offsite storage facility. The NMH described how delivery ward registers are bound volumes that are specific to each year from 1894 to 1997, after which date they only exist in electronic format. The NMH explained that delivery ward entries were handwritten by staff in each volume, in chronological order, which means that it is very easy to locate an entry for a specific date, by finding the relevant volume for the year and then navigating to the relevant month and day. According to the NMH, it was through a search of these volumes that the delivery ward extract released to the applicant was found.
According to the NMH, no other relevant records exist due to record management decisions made by the hospital in the 1980s. In support of its position, the NMH submitted records of the minutes of a hospital medical conference held in June 1984 and minutes of a November 1982 Hospital Board meeting. Although the NMH originally relied on these minutes as evidence of the destruction of pre-1968 records, it subsequently acknowledged that, while these minutes confirm that a decision was taken in the 1980s to microfilm medical charts/records as far back as 1968, they are silent as to whether records prior to that date were destroyed. However, the NMH confirmed that it is known in the hospital, by word of mouth, that a decision was made in the 1980s to shred all physical charts due to a lack of storage space and the costs of storing the ever-growing number of these. According to the NMH, any charts dating from prior to 1968 were shredded and were not microfilmed whereas any charts from 1968 onwards were shredded but were microfilmed. The NMH stated that this process continued until 1992, when a decision was made to retain physical files once more, no longer shredding or microfilming them. According to the NMH, the only exception to the shredding of pre-1968 records was the delivery ward extracts. The NMH added that, since 2018, all physical medical charts are digitalised in line with the introduction of the Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) and are therefore no longer retained.
The NMH stated that, when active, medical records like those requested by the applicant are held onsite by the Medical Records Department. However, when no longer in active use, they are held at an offsite storage facility which is managed by an external agency. The NMH said that, to its knowledge, no records have been transferred to other locations apart from its offsite storage location. According to the NMH, with the exception of the delivery ward extract, all the records requested by the applicant, including those relating to her baptism, are contained within medical records, and were therefore destroyed on foot of the 1980s decision.
NMH said that microfilmed medical records and physical charts are kept in the same offsite storage facility as the delivery ward extracts. It stated that the microfilmed charts are stored in filing cabinets by order of year and are further identified by patient name and hospital number. The NMH added that the year of each of the microfilmed records is also clearly marked. According to the NMH, two searches of these records were carried out but no microfilmed charts dating from prior to 1968 were found.
The NMH said that physical medical files are stored in boxes. According to the NMH, each box has a barcode label and the range of the year and of the hospital numbers of the charts contained in the box is clearly indicated. The NMH explained that each box contains approximately 10 to 12 charts and that each individual chart has a barcode label and is identified by the patient's name and the hospital number, which includes the year to which it belongs. According to the NMH, there is a computerised register of the boxes and their contents, linked to the relevant barcodes. The NMH stated that two searches were also carried out of these boxes, but that no records from prior to 1968 were found.
It is the position of the NMH that all medical records prior to 1968, with the exception of delivery ward extracts, were destroyed on foot of a decision made by the hospital in the 1980s. While the NMH was unable to produce any documentation that conclusively demonstrates that this destruction was ordered or took place, it nonetheless confirmed that knowledge of it was handed down by word of mouth to current staff by staff members who had carried out the management of records at the time. Furthermore, the NMH has described how it stores its records and has outlined the searches it carried out in order to locate records relevant to the applicant’s request and how these searches yielded no results.
While I appreciate that the applicant is disappointed that the NMH cannot provide records relating to her mother/her birth, our role is confined to reviewing the decision taken by the NMH on access to the records she requested. Having regard to the submissions before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further relevant searches ought to be undertaken, I am satisfied from the details provided by the NMH about the destruction of pre 1968 records, its records management practices and the searches it said it undertook that it has provided a reasonable explanation as to why the records sought no longer exist. Accordingly, I find that the NMH was justified in refusing the applicant’s FOI request under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that no further records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of the NMH to refuse access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Richard Crowley
Investigator