Research, public opinion and patient consent

September 13th, 2010 at 10:04 UTC by Ross Anderson

Paul Thornton has brought to my attention some research that the Department of Health published quietly at the end of 2009 (and which undermines Departmental policy).

It is the Summary of Responses to the Consultation on the Additional Uses of Patient Data undertaken following campaigning by doctors, NGOs and others about the Secondary Uses Service (SUS). SUS keeps summaries of patient care episodes, some of them anonymised, and makes them available for secondary uses; the system’s advocates talk about research, although it is heavily used for health service management, clinical audit, answering parliamentary questions and so on. Most patients are quite unaware that tens of thousands of officials have access to their records, and the Database State report we wrote last year concluded that SUS is almost certainly illegal. (Human-rights and data-protection law require that sensitive data, including health data, be shared only with the consent of the data subject or using tightly restricted statutory powers whose effects are predictable to data subjects.)

The Department of Health’s consultation shows that most people oppose the secondary use of their health records without consent. The executive summary tries to spin this a bit, but the data from the report’s body show that public opinion remains settled on the issue, as it has been since the first opinion survey in 1997. We do see some signs of increasing sophistication: now a quarter of patients don’t believe that data can be anonymised completely, versus 15% who say that sharing is “OK if anonymised” (p 23). And the views of medical researchers and NHS administrators are completely different; see for example p 41. The size of this gap suggests the issue won’t get resolved any time soon – perhaps until there’s an Alder-Hey-type incident that causes a public outcry and forces a reform of SUS.

Entry filed under: Academic papers, Legal issues, Politics, Privacy technology

1 comment Add your own

  • 1. Clive Robinson  |  October 24th, 2010 at 00:51 UTC

    @ Ross,

    Have youj seen the back of the new (since April) “fit to work” certificates that replace the old sick certificates?

    Well for the unemployed making a claim they have to sign a blanket waiver to allow effectivly full access to their medical records.

    This is possibly due to ATOS (a private company of dubious origins WRTT) who it appears don’t use medicaly qualified doctors to “assess claiments” and set “go no go” quotas for those assessing claiments…

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930