Key facts
- The ICO is investigating Oxehealth's camera and infrared sensor system for monitoring mental health patients.
- The system is used by 40% of NHS mental health trusts in the UK.
- Critics argue the system is intrusive, a violation of privacy, and potentially unlawful.
- A bereaved mother claims the system contributed to her daughter's paranoia before her suicide.
- Oxehealth states the technology enhances patient safety and has flagged numerous self-harm and ligature incidents.
The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has initiated an investigation into Oxehealth's camera and infrared sensor system, Oxevision, used to monitor patients in their bedrooms within mental health facilities. This system is reportedly employed by 40% of NHS mental health trusts.
Patients have described the technology as "creepy" and "spying," with one bereaved mother, Tammy Smith, stating it contributed to her daughter's paranoia before her suicide. Smith testified that the system was intrusive and did not ensure her daughter's safety, arguing that technology cannot replace human observation.
Lawyers from Bindmans, representing the campaign group Stop Oxevision, formally requested the ICO's inquiry, questioning the lawfulness of how Oxehealth collects, processes, and retains sensitive patient data, including video footage. Rachel Harger, a partner at Bindmans, emphasized that patient bedrooms should be sanctuaries and that organizations must have a clear lawful basis for data collection.
Oxehealth, which has rebranded as LIO, maintains that its technology enhances patient safety and frees up NHS staff time. A spokesperson stated that the platform has flagged numerous ligature and self-harm incidents, assisting in timely interventions. However, Laura Cozens, head of patient safety at LIO, acknowledged to an inquiry that filming patients 24 hours a day is a significant invasion of privacy, though recordings are only available under strict governance.
The technology's use is also under scrutiny by the Lampard inquiry, investigating the deaths of thousands of mental health patients. Solicitors representing families in the inquiry, such as Nina Ali, have called the system unsafe, intrusive, and potentially unlawful, warning it can cause more harm than good if staff rely on it instead of in-person observations.
Selen Cavcav from the charity Inquest highlighted concerns that such intrusive technologies can exacerbate distress and issues like coercion and lack of privacy in mental health settings, advocating for alternatives that prioritize dignity and autonomy over private company profits.