Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register?
HOME | CONTACT | NEWS ARCHIVE | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | COMMENT & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES | FORUMS

Government rejects consent call for SUS use

14 Nov 2007

The government has rejected calls from the Commons Health Select Committee to apply consent to the use of Secondary Uses Service data for research purposes, including information in ‘sealed envelopes’.

In its official response to the committee’s report on the Electronic Patient Record the government says that the design of the Secondary Uses Services (SUS) ensures that patient confidentiality is protected and therefore consent was not required.

The committee had called for information in sealed envelopes not to be made available to the SUS under any circumstances without consent.

However in its response, the government refused to apply consent to usage of the SUS by researchers.

“Patient consent to the use of anonymised data is not required by law and the use of such data is not required by law and the use of such data for secondary uses, including research, is both accepted and actively promoted by the relevant professional and regulatory bodies,” the response says.

The 23 page response gives detailed replies to each of the 22 recommendations made by the Commons committee, many of which are accepted.

The government said it accepted the principle of patient control of the national Summary Care Record, but was against the idea of giving every citizen a health insurance card loaded with their individual record, an idea the committee had seen in action in France.

An idea similar to this was originally floated in the NHS 2000 plan, but was now unrealistic due to the NHS being free and accessible at the point of care.

“The fundamental differences in funding method between the French and English systems require different models…[In France] the fundamental rationale is that any (non-emergency) treatment requires the authorisation of the patient, whereas in the UK funding is a background process handled internally by the NHS and invisible to the patient,” the response says.

They added that through the use of role-based access controls, sealed envelopes, patients ability to add additional notes, emergency access and audit trails, the National Programme for IT had learnt a lot from the French and other global healthcare systems.

A pledge was also made to ensure that communication with patients is clear and understood fully by all adults whose data will be uploaded onto the Summary Care Record.

“The Department of Health will take all reasonable steps to ensure that intentions are understood,” they promise.

The government also agreed, in principle, to trial the use of HealthSpace as a method for patients to record their key health information, and be able to view full audit trails, showing who has accessed their SCR and under what circumstances. This will include mechanisms for investigating inappropriate access.

The government also pledged to keep under review the use of biometric technologies such as facial, retinal and fingerprint recognition to validate staff identity and to support calls from the Information Commissioner for custodial sentences for unlawful access to personal information.

Links

Health Committee report on the Electronic Patient Record

The Government response to the Health Committee report on the Electronic Patient Record

 

 

© 2007 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

1

Identifiable Data

14 Nov 07 08:17

Except that SUS data is PATIENT IDENTIFIABLE. See: http://tinyurl.com/3a5nvh Which in my book, and as far as I am aware under the DPA, means that explicit consent should be sought for the processing of data in this particular way, as well as patients having the right to opt-out of their data being used in this way. But of course they're not asked....


2

the real business case for NPfIT

14 Nov 07 20:38

perhaps was built on lobbying from pharmaceutical companies ?....


3

What next?

16 Nov 07 09:40

Seems to me that this is presenting the perfect reason NOT to have your information uploaded onto CRS.

When the powers that be decide that the rules don't apply to them, or if they do, to change the rules, it does make you wonder what your personal data will used for next.

Personally, I think the concept of CRS is a great idea. I just don't trust the government (of whatever hue) not to change the purposes for which MY personal data will be processed.

I have attended several seminars etc on CRS and am still waiting for the subject of information security to be properly discussed. I've never yet heard ANYONE reference BS 7799, BS ISO/IEC 17799:2005 (or BS ISO/IEC 27002:2005 as it is now) or BS ISO/IEC 27001.

So, at some time in the future, if a governmant wants to prevent people with a defective gene from breeding they can simply look it up on CRS. It can't happen? Think ........... Germany 1939!! It CAN happen and it CAN happen again, only faster and much more efficiently!


4

What Next... Already Happened

17 Nov 07 20:43

For adherence to IG standards, see the NHS CFH website (http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov/standards/iso27000).

BS7799 has been there from the start.


5

Data from sealed envelopes

22 Nov 07 12:57

If SUS data is truely non identifiable then it should include data from sealed envelopes as if it didn't we would be missing rather a lot, for example it would be difficult to collect data on termination of pregnancy or sexual health particularly HIV. It is important that any system we use is fit for purpose as well as confidential and secure.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
latest forum posts
latest forum posts
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters