At 12:35 29/04/04, you wrote:
>In article <[log in to unmask]>, Julian
>Bradley <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >>Not even to me personally?
> >>
> >>Trefor
> >
> >Trefor,
> >
> >Reversing roles slightly, what do you think the legal position is in
> >respect of such a request?
> >
> >(Let's assume for a moment that the research has been through ethical
> >committees that would keep both ends happy).
> >
> >Julian
>Would the legal position be affected by on-site versus off-site access?
We investigated this a few years ago but Trefor may be more up to date.
At that time, although it was not uncommon for non-practice employees to be
given on site access to non-anonymized data, we concluded that this was not
_usually_ acceptable.
People can of course become temporary or honorary members of staff, and if
this is to help undertake the routine work of the practice this may be
satisfactory.
However research is rather different which is why I asked Trefor the
question. I was also surprised when I found out, a couple of years ago
now, that research on records _may_ need ethical committee approval. I
don't remember the exact details but as I'm not involved in research it's
not exactly a core expertise. I am aware there's been quite a lot of
debate at GMC / government level.
Julian
|