Find the discussion on section 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
interesting.
Does medical information which can be used for 'crime purposes' under the
remit of section 17 the Crime and Disorder Act (requires Health Authorities
to exercise their powers in crime and disorder partnerships) come into this
same arena?
If so there appear to be very particular and especially difficult DP issues
wrapped up in this.
Scenario:-
An individual is assaulted in a city/town centre by one of their companions
during an argument or joke which goes wrong. The individual chooses not to
report the matter to the police but does attend hospital with some injuries.
They decline permission for the hospital to pass on their details to the
police, or any other person. The hospital is then working under an explicit
confidentiality clause. The patient is dealt with and discharged. The
information the patient has willingly disclosed to the hospital for the
treatment of their injury is filed, with specific pieces being used, but
only in the health or health research field.
Under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act the Health Authority are
placed in a position where they have to disclose the information in some way
to the partnerships. Under duress they disclose anonymised data, which
includes the location of the offence, potentially in the same way research
data is provided.
The police, who are a member of the partnership receive details of the
location of the offence. It therefore becomes a recordable crime and has to
be recorded as such. Not to investigate a recorded crime would be negligent
of the police so they now have a duty to investigate that crime. Claiming a
DPA 1998 section 29 exemption they request further details to be disclosed
by the hospital involved.
As the individual has, for their own purposes, very specifically stated they
do not wish the police to be involved, are the DPA rights of the individual
being infringed?
Would persons who do not wish police involvement, attending hospital with
injuries, continue giving their correct details if the information was
disclosed? Or would they begin to give false details, as many do to the
police now?
If they give false details are they likely to give another living
individuals details, as they do to the police, because if they make a name
up they will be found out? What impact would that have on the provision of
health care to that individual?
What mechanisms exist for identifying when an alias persons information is
added to another persons file?
It may be worth the health DP practitioners on this list reviewing
mechanisms to deal with alias names.
Ian W.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: clause 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
> I disagree with this editorial as I think it is OTT
>
> Ross Anderson has overlooked the fact that regulations allow the patient
> information to be used and disclosed for a medical purpose which is
limited;
> RA implies that medical information can be used for any old thing - it
cannot
> - it has to be a medical purpose.
>
> The real problem I see is that medical research is included in the
definition
> of medical purpose, so Ministers can enact secondary legislation which
> facilitates medical research without the consent of the patient. However,
if
> the disclosure is required by law and becomes subject to the
non-disclosure
> provisions, and this means that there is no obligation to contact the
patient
> and tell him of the purpose.
>
> What has happened, to put it crudely, is that medical researchers from
going
> to a position where they should get the consent of the patient, could be
in a
> position where they do not need to inform the patient.
>
> This is what is wrong with the proposal.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 23 February 2001 13:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: clause 67 of the Health and Social Care Bill
>
>
> An interesting editorial in the current issue of the British Medical
> Journal:
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/442
>
> Undermining data privacy in health information
> Ross Anderson
>
> The editorial asserts that Clause 67:
>
> .... grants the secretary of state for health two sweeping new powers: (a)
to
> collect all personal health information in identifable form not just from
> the NHS, but from the private sector too; and (b) to regulate (or even
ban)
> the use of personal health information by third parties...
>
> Gil Richardson
> Senior Information Manager
> RCGP
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.rcgp.org.uk
> Tel: 020 7581 3232 ext 231
> Fax: 020 7584 1992
>
> This email is confidential. It may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone
> other than the addressee. If you receive this message in error, please
> advise the sender immediately.
>
>
> This e-mail is confidential. It may not be disclosed to, or used by,
anyone
> other than the addressee. If you receive this message in error, please
advise
> the sender immediately.
> This email has been scanned for viruses but we strongly recommend you set
up
> your own antivirus precautions.
> College web site http://www.rcgp.org.uk/
> JCPTGP web site http://www.jcptgp.org.uk/
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
> all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> ******************** E-mail confidentiality notice ********************
>
> This message is intended for the addressee only. It is private,
> confidential and may be covered by legal professional privilege or
> other legal or attorney/client privilege. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.
>
> If you require assistance, please contact our London office
> (telephone +44 (0) 20 7490 4000).
>
> Masons is an international law firm with offices in London, Bristol,
> Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Brussels, Dublin, Hong Kong,
> Guangzhou and Singapore.
>
> Further information about the firm and a list of partners is
> available for inspection at 30 Aylesbury Street, London EC1R OER
> or from our Web site at www.masons.com
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
> all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|