Selecting relevant information and documents

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is selecting relevant information and documents. By the end, you should be able to submit relevant material obtained lawfully. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. Users need to describe facts clearly and select an appropriate route. They do not need to conduct their own investigation or obtain material unlawfully. The exercise uses a fictional file and secure communication.

An entire archive is unnecessary when one relevant document suffices. Consider third-party data and lawful access. Protection does not authorise every method of obtaining material.

Apply the following rule: Section 19(1) requires personal data collected when receiving reports to be deleted within three months after the procedure is completed. If judicial or disciplinary proceedings against the person concerned or the reporting person have begun, keep the data throughout those proceedings, including an appeal or objection, and delete after one year has passed following their completion. This specific rule also applies to national-law reporting through the cross-references in sections 34 and 35. Do not replace it with an unspecified necessary-and-proportionate period.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Select relevant evidence and explain its origin. Do not alter originals or obtain another person’s credentials. If access is unavailable, describe where the evidence can be found. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

Consider how a colleague taking over tomorrow would understand the decision. Identify the verified information and its source, who is authorised to decide and who checks the result. The record should connect the decision to the material actually used rather than repeat the whole file. State critical gaps and assign a specific action to resolve them. This makes continuity independent of one person’s memory. Apply the proposed organisational steps within legal powers. In the case, distinguish observation, conclusion and hypothesis. An observation describes available evidence, a conclusion explains what can reasonably be inferred and a hypothesis still needs checking. Do not infer motives merely from unusual behaviour. Identify which further information could change the decision and whether it can be obtained lawfully and proportionately. Incomplete knowledge justifies neither certainty of guilt nor indifference to an actual risk.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A worker lawfully has an invoice but considers copying a colleague’s entire medical file. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Is the unrelated file necessary? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Limit submission to useful, lawfully available material. The authorised team assesses further needs.

One mistake to avoid is: bulk copying to strengthen a report.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system deletes every case five years after receipt, regardless of country and pending proceedings. Is this suitable?

No. Apply the specific national retention rule and its starting event. Consider pending judicial or disciplinary proceedings where required. Record the decision by category, include copies and designate the person who reviews a suspension of deletion.