Skip to main content

BMA Ethics committee respond to Caldicott Review on information governance.

Patients give staff in health and social care personal information about themselves all the time and they trust that we will protect the information they give. As we move to a more electronic age, where information can be shared more easily, and across many more types of organisations,  there has been an urgent need to review 'information governence' and the balance between protecting patient information and its sharing to improve patient care.  Information is collected in data bases which are used in a variety of ways for research.

When I served on an NHS research ethics committee we were always concerned that information about patients in trials would be protected and that they should be able to give informed consent to the information being used.

With publication today of the Caldicott Review, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said that 

1)any patient who does not want personal data held in their GP record to be shared with the Health and Social Care Information Centre will have their objection respected; and

2 where personal data has already been shared from a GP practice to the Information Centre, a patient will still be able to have the identifiable information removed. 

But this is very much an 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in' strategy and it is difficult to see how patients can give consent to any specific use of information held about them. 

Caldicott recommends that patients should

•  have the right of access to your own personal records within the health and social
care system.
•  have the right to privacy and confidentiality and to expect the health and social
care system to keep your confidential information safe and secure.
• have the right to be informed about how your information is used.
• have the right to request that your confidential data is not used beyond your own
care and treatment and to have your objections considered, and where your wishes
cannot be followed, to be told the reasons including the legal basis.

The NHS and adult social services should also commit:

• to ensure those involved in your care and treatment have access to your health and 
social care data so they can care for you safely and effectively;
• to anonymise the data collected during the course of your care and treatment and use it 
to support research and improve care for others;
• where identifiable data has to be used, to give you the chance to object wherever 
possible;
• to inform you of research studies in which you may be eligible to participate; 
and
• to share with you any correspondence sent between staff about your care.

Responding today to the Caldicott Review -‘Information to share or not to share’ - a comprehensive report about sharing health information in England, Chairman of the BMA’s Medical Ethics Committee, Dr Tony Calland, said:

“The Caldicott Review has involved a great deal of effort by Dame Fiona Caldicott and her team, especially given the scope and complexity of the issues, so it is important that we recognise this.

“We are very pleased that there is a commitment to respecting patients’ objections to confidential data being shared as this is something the BMA has worked hard to reach agreement on. Confidentiality is the cornerstone of the doctor/patient partnership and we must do all we can to safeguard it.”

The BMA has some outstanding concerns about how “safe havens” will be implemented. These are areas where researchers and commissioners can carry out analyses under secure conditions and should be kept to a minimum, believes the BMA. The use of any information that could identify individuals, such as the NHS number, could increase a risk to confidentiality, unless robust safeguards are in place.

Dr Calland, added:

“While health data is vital to improve health services and medical research, it is essential that the strict controls described in the Review for safe havens are scrupulously adhered to and regularly audited by an independent body.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As