Slovenia🏛️ PoliticsProgressiveOverlooked by conservatives
UKC Ljubljana: Employee shared photos of patients during treatment with at least one person
In late July 2026, employees at the University Clinic Ljubljana (UKC) were informed by the information officer and patient rights representative that a staff member had sent photographs of patients during their treatment to at least one person. The images included a patient with severe burns, a woman who had undergone amputation, and documentation containing sensitive personal data. Patient rights advocate Marjan Sušelj condemned the act as a serious violation of privacy, stating it was an unacceptable intrusion into patient confidentiality. The UKC confirmed the unauthorized sharing of photos and stated that the employee had been issued a written warning, transferred to a different work environment under supervision without access to phones, and enrolled in additional mandatory training. Sušelj argued that such an individual should lose their job, and the institution should take stricter measures to prevent future violations while immediately informing patients or their representatives of the breach. The UKC explained that they intended to notify the affected patient personally in the next week but had already reported the incident to the information officer and patient rights rep
In UKC Ljubljana, a staff member allegedly shared photos of patients during treatment with at least one individual, according to reports received by the hospital’s office. The images included a patient with severe burns, a woman who had undergone amputation, and documentation containing sensitive personal data. The incident was disclosed to the Information Officer and the representative of patient rights by the end of July 2026, along with a police report. The hospital confirmed that the employee acted outside their authority and described the act as a serious breach of privacy. The hospital stated that the staff member has been issued a written warning before being dismissed. They have relocated the employee to another work environment under supervision and without access to a phone, while also directing them to additional mandatory training. According to Marjan Sušelj, a representative of patient rights, such behavior should result in termination. He emphasized that anyone working with patients should not intrude upon their privacy, calling the action a grave violation. The hospital informed the patient about the incident intended for personal notification within the following week. However, the case was already reported to the relevant authorities earlier. The Health and Care Ethics Board is reviewing the submitted documents and will decide on further proceedings. The hospital noted that the employee deeply regrets the incident and has not received any complaints, though she has reportedly been praised. The incident involves a staff member at the University Clinical Center (UKC) in Ljubljana who allegedly shared photographs of patients during their treatment. The photos were sent to at least one person and include sensitive information. The hospital has taken disciplinary actions against the employee, including relocation and additional training. The patient rights representative criticized the act as a serious breach of privacy, emphasizing the need for strict measures to prevent recurrence. The hospital plans to inform the patient personally soon and has already reported the incident to the appropriate authorities. The ethics board is currently reviewing the case and will determine subsequent steps. The employee expressed regret over the incident and has not faced any formal complaints.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
An employee at the Ljubljana University Clinical Center (UKC) allegedly photographed patients during their treatment and shared the images with a friend. The photos included sensitive personal data, including a patient with severe burns and another who reportedly refused amputation. Marjan Sušelj, representative of patients' rights, condemned the act as a serious violation of privacy, stating that such actions by healthcare workers are unacceptable and breach professional confidentiality. The UKC confirmed the unauthorized sharing of photographs, calling it a severe breach of protocol, and issued a written warning to the employee, reassigning them to a different work environment with restricted access. Sušelj criticized the incident as an attack on human dignity and called for stricter measures against such violations. The UKC informed the Information Commissioner and the patient rights representative about the incident in late July and filed a report with the police. The Medical Ethics Board has been asked to review the case and take further action.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the incident as a serious ethical and legal violation, emphasizing the breach of patient privacy and the need for stronger accountability within healthcare institutions. While the issue itself is medical ethics, the tone and emphasis align more closely with progressive values of患者
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the incident based on the primary source document, including details such as the three screenshots, the employee’s actions, the disciplinary measures taken by UKC Ljubljana, and statements from Marjan Sušelj. The only minor discrepancy is that the article cuts off mid-
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the facts neutrally but includes direct quotes from Sušelj that carry strong emotional language ('grozljivo', 'popolnoma nedopustno'). While these quotes are included verbatim from the source, they introduce some subjectivity into the piece.
The University Clinical Center (UKC) in Ljubljana confirmed an incident where an employee shared photographs of patients during their treatment with friends. The photos included sensitive personal data and were sent to at least one individual. The patient was informed of this breach later, but the incident was reported to the Information Protection Officer and the representative of patient rights by mid-July, along with a police report. Patient rights advocate Marjan Sušelj criticized the act as a severe violation of privacy, stating such actions should not be tolerated in healthcare settings. The UKC stated the employee had no authorization to share the images, leading to a formal warning, reassignment to a monitored environment without phone access, and mandatory additional training. Sušelj argued the employee should be dismissed, and the institution should take stricter measures to prevent future violations while informing patients or their representatives of any breaches. The hospital also mentioned the employee strongly regrets the incident and received no complaints, though some reportedly praised her.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the incident as a serious violation of patient privacy, emphasizing the ethical and legal responsibilities of healthcare workers. It highlights the potential consequences for the employee and calls for stronger institutional oversight, which aligns with progressive values of human
Why factuality (92): This article is very close to the primary source document, accurately reporting the incident, the hospital's response, and the statements made by Marjan Sušelj. It includes all key points without significant omissions or additions, making it highly factual and aligned with the original source.
Why objectivity (75): Although the article is factual, it carries a strong emotional tone, especially in the quote from Sušelj where he describes the action as a 'hud napad na dostojanstvo človeka'. This indicates a bias towards condemning the employee's behavior rather than maintaining complete neutrality.
In late July 2026, employees at the University Clinic Ljubljana (UKC) were informed by the information officer and patient rights representative that a staff member had sent photographs of patients during their treatment to at least one person. The images included a patient with severe burns, a woman who had undergone amputation, and documentation containing sensitive personal data. Patient rights advocate Marjan Sušelj condemned the act as a serious violation of privacy, stating it was an unacceptable intrusion into patient confidentiality. The UKC confirmed the unauthorized sharing of photos and stated that the employee had been issued a written warning, transferred to a different work environment under supervision without access to phones, and enrolled in additional mandatory training. Sušelj argued that such an individual should lose their job, and the institution should take stricter measures to prevent future violations while immediately informing patients or their representatives of the breach. The UKC explained that they intended to notify the affected patient personally in the next week but had already reported the incident to the information officer and patient rights rep
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the incident as a serious violation of patient privacy, emphasizing the ethical and legal implications of the staff member's actions. It highlights the responsibility of healthcare institutions to protect patient confidentiality and criticizes the lack of accountability. While the
Why factuality (88): This article mirrors the primary source document closely, providing accurate details about the incident, the response from the hospital, and the legal steps taken. It includes the same quotes from Marjan Sušelj and confirms the actions taken by the UKC Ljubljana. Minor discrepancies include slight v
Why objectivity (72): While the article remains largely factual, it uses emotionally charged language when describing the breach, such as 'grobposeg v zasebnost', which emphasizes the gravity of the situation. The tone is more critical of the employee’s actions than purely objective.
An employee at the University Clinical Center (UKC) in Ljubljana is under investigation after allegedly sharing photographs of patients during their treatment. The incident was reported to the Information Commissioner and patient rights representative by the end of July 2026, along with a police report. The photos included sensitive personal data and were shared with at least one individual. Patient rights advocate Marjan Sušelj condemned the act as a severe invasion of privacy, stating it goes beyond casual communication and violates patient confidentiality. The UKC confirmed the unauthorized disclosure, described it as a serious breach, and has issued a written warning, relocated the employee to a monitored environment without phone access, and mandated additional training. The employee reportedly does not have any complaints against them and was even praised by some colleagues.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a serious violation of patient privacy, emphasizing the ethical and legal implications of the employee’s actions. It highlights the role of patient rights advocates and regulatory bodies, which aligns with progressive values. While the UKC responds with disciplinary措施
Why factuality (87): The article reflects the primary source document accurately, covering the unauthorized sharing of images, the hospital's response, and the involvement of the patient rights representative. It maintains consistency with the official statement and does not introduce new or conflicting information.
Why objectivity (71): The article has a slightly biased tone, particularly in the description of the employee's actions as 'nepremišljeno potezo' and the emphasis on the violation of patient privacy. This suggests a lean toward criticizing the employee rather than presenting a balanced view.
A staff member at the University Clinical Center (UKC) in Ljubljana was reportedly photographing patients during their treatment and sharing the photos with friends, according to reports by POP TV. The incident was confirmed by UKC authorities, who stated they have been investigating the matter since late July and have informed the Information Officer and patient rights representative, while also filing a police report. The staff member allegedly shared three screenshots showing a patient with severe burns, a woman recovering after amputation, and documentation containing sensitive personal data. Patient rights advocate Marjan Sušelj condemned the act as a serious violation of privacy, stating that such actions should not be tolerated by anyone working with patients. The UKC has taken disciplinary measures, including issuing a written warning, relocating the employee to a different work environment under supervision, and requiring additional mandatory training. While the patient has not yet been informed of the incident, the hospital claims the employee deeply regrets the action and received no complaints, though some colleagues reportedly praised her.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the incident as a serious breach of patient privacy, emphasizing the ethical and legal implications of the staff member’s actions. It highlights the concerns raised by patient rights advocates and the institutional response, which includes formal disciplinary measures. The tone is
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the incident based on the primary source document, including details about the unauthorized sharing of patient photos, the actions taken by the hospital, and the statements from Marjan Sušelj. It aligns closely with the official response from the UKC Ljubljana. However
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the situation with a clear stance against the employee's actions, using emotive language such as 'grozbilno' and emphasizing the violation of privacy. While it provides factual information, it leans towards highlighting the severity of the breach rather than maintaining strict n
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
