Cinneadh
Ms. X & The Health Service Executive (HSE)
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-159198-Y7Q5Q3
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-159198-Y7Q5Q3
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether the HSE was justified in refusing the applicant access to further GP records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the grounds that no further records exist or can be found after having taken all reasonable steps to locate the records
21 November 2025
In a request dated 7 August 2024, the applicant sought access to her medical records from a number of services across the HSE, including her GP records. The applicant provided details of her current GP doctor for reference and asked that the request include all records transferred from her previous GP when she joined the current practice “in early 2010’s”. This review is solely concerned with access to the applicant’s GP records.
The HSE issued its original decision in two parts. On 28 August 2024, the HSE part-granted access to the applicant’s GP records, redacting third party personal information under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. On 18 September 2024, following contact from the applicant the HSE refused access to pre-2010 GP records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the grounds that it does not hold these records. It said it concluded this after searches were carried out at the applicant’s current GP surgery and the records of two other named GPs based elsewhere. The HSE said that when the applicant’s previous GP retired in 2010, his panel of patients was transferred to one of the two named GPs, who advised that they do not hold the applicant’s records. On 18 October 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the HSE’s decision to refuse further GP records under section 15(1)(a). In her internal review request, the applicant stated that she was never a patient of the two other named GPs and so it was unsurprising that they would not hold the requested records. The applicant noted that no contacts or attempts to contact her previous GP had been made. She said it has always been her belief that her former GP’s records would have transferred to her new GP’s surgery.
On 20 November 2024, the HSE affirmed its original decision. The HSE stated that the two other GP surgeries were contacted because it said the requested records were not transferred to her current GP and, according to the PCR National Schemes Viewer, the applicant was listed as a patient of one of the other GPs for a very short time in 2005 and 2006. The HSE said it would not contact the applicant’s previous GP as he retired from the General Medical Services (GMS) Scheme in 2010. It said her previous GP’s panel of patients transferred to one of the named GPs together with all GP records for medical card patients at that time. In response to the applicant’s statement that she was never a patient of this GP, the HSE said it contacted the named GP to ascertain whether any of the applicant’s medical records had been transferred as they had not transferred to the applicant’s current GP.
On 19 May 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the HSE’s decision. The applicant said she wished to appeal the HSE’s decision to refuse her GP records from before 2010 and also said that records listed as in the file released to her were missing. During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of HSE’s submissions outlining its efforts to locate the records sought and invited the applicant to make submissions of her own, 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 HSE and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
Scope of Review
This review is solely concerned with whether the HSE was justified in refusing access to further GP records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the grounds that no further records exist or can be found.
Section 15(1)(a)
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. My role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. 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.
HSE’s submissions
The HSE said there is no indication that records in the scope of the request were lost or accidently destroyed. However, it stated that, given the historical nature of some of the records, the possibility of loss of records due to unforeseen events (such as physical deterioration or environmental incidents) cannot be entirely ruled out. The HSE said that as the outstanding records could not be located, there is a possibility that they may have been destroyed as part of the safe disposal and closure process of the previous GP practice.
The HSE stated that thorough searches were conducted at the relevant GP practices of both electronic and manual records. It said that the applicant’s current GP practice did not receive the requested records from the previous practice after it closed. The HSE said that Primary Care contacted the relevant GP surgeries to request all GP medical records to the date of the request, including any notes transferred from the applicant’s previous GP. It stated that all manual and electronic searches were conducted, as well as searches of all storage facilities within the practices.
The HSE stated that, while the applicant’s current GP said it did not hold any further records, it said that the records of the previous GP were transferred to another GP. This GP was also contacted by the HSE to search for records but said that it held no records under the applicant’s name, nor any other records from her previous GP’s patients. The applicant’s current GP also informed the HSE that the applicant’s previous GP held paper files.
The HSE was asked if it could explain why the records from the applicant’s previous GP did not transfer to her current GP. The HSE responded by stating that a reason for the non-transfer of the patient records has not been confirmed. It stated that in accordance with data protection protocols and file retention policies following the termination of a GMS contract, GPs are required to ensure that patient records are either transferred with patient consent or retained securely by the practice. However, as the records have not been located, the HSE restated that there remains a possibility that the requested records may have been destroyed during the closure process, in line with safe disposal procedures.
The Investigating Officer referred the HSE to the list of missing records the applicant had highlighted in her internal review request and asked the HSE to address the gaps in what was released. The HSE responded by saying that all the records were released to the applicant in the original format in which the HSE Primary Care Unit received them from the GP Practitioner. The HSE said, in line with HSE protocols, when processing documents received from external services, no alterations can be made to the original records. The HSE said that this ensures the integrity of the information when issuing a decision in response to an FOI request.
Applicant’s submissions and further search
The applicant was provided with an update on the HSE’s submissions and was given an opportunity of her own to provide submissions, which she duly did.
The applicant stated that it should be a reasonable step to at least attempt to contact her previous GP in the search for records, despite his retirement from public practice. The applicant also reiterated that the records released to her do not reflect the schedule of records provided.
After receiving the applicant’s submissions, the Investigating Officer asked the HSE if it is possible to contact the applicant’s previous GP to ascertain the whereabouts of records. In response, the HSE said the Practice Manager at the applicant’s current GP surgery contacted the applicant’s former GP about the applicant’s records. The HSE said that the GP had also been contacted directly by the applicant and conducted a search for her file, but said he was unable to locate it. The HSE stated that the GP conducted a further search but was again unable to locate the applicant’s file. It said that the GP was able to contact his former secretary to request a more comprehensive search of his former practice. The HSE stated that the Practice Manager of the applicant’s current GP surgery has not yet heard back from the former GP or his former secretary despite multiple attempts to get a response.
The HSE also stated that the Practice Manager said that the applicant’s current GP surgery would only request access to records from a patient’s previous GP in exceptional circumstances, for example, if the patient was chronically ill, and then return the records to the previous GP. The HSE said that this did not happen with the applicant in this case, and so the applicant’s current GP practice did not receive her records from her previous GP.
While it is regrettable that no definite explanation has been provided for the whereabouts of the applicant’s previous GP records, it is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist, or are known to have existed in the past, have not been located. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records sought ought to exist or did exist.
The Investigating Officer recently contacted the HSE again to seek an update on whether it had received any further information about further possible searches by the applicant’s former GP. In response the HSE said that as previously advised, the applicant’s former GP conducted an initial search for her file following receipt of written contact from her, however, the file could not be located. The HSE said in September 2025, the former GP informed the current GP’s Practice Manager that he had contacted a former staff member with a view to undertaking a more comprehensive search of his premises. The HSE said that despite numerous attempts by the Practice Manager to follow up with the former GP by text and voicemail, most recently on 10, 11, 12 and 14 November 2025, neither he nor the former staff member have provided any further response. The HSE said in light of the ongoing efforts made to locate the applicant’s file, it is reasonable to consider that the GP Practice Manager has taken all steps that could be considered appropriate in the circumstances.
While I appreciate the applicant may be disappointed that her former GP’s files have not been located, having regard to the information before this Office, I agree with the HSE’s position that it has at this time taken all reasonable steps to locate the records. While it is not something that this Office can review, it is disappointing that the applicant’s GP file was not transferred to her new GP when the former GP retired from the GMS. As noted above, we do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out indefinite searches for records. In my view the HSE has taken all reasonable steps to retrieve the applicant’s records. As the former GP has not replied to multiple efforts to contact him, it is unclear to me what further steps the HSE can be expected to take. Unfortunately, despite its efforts to retrieve the applicant’s previous GP file, the HSE has been unable to locate it.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the HSE has at this time taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant. Accordingly, I find the HSE was justified in its decision to refuse access to the pre-2010 records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. However, if the HSE or current GP practice gets a response from the former GP, I would expect it to provide the applicant with an update in the matter. If her former GP records are located, a decision on access to those records should be made in accordance with the FOI Act.
Finally, as noted above the applicant said that certain records listed in the GP file that was released to her were missing. While it is the HSE’s position that it released all records that were provided to it by the GP practice, as the applicant has identified certain records that she did not receive which were listed as being in the file, I direct the HSE to contact the applicant to ascertain what, if any, records are missing and to release a copy of any of those missing records to the applicant.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the HSE’s decision to refuse access to the applicant’s pre-2010 GP 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