There is a world of difference between an off site back up, and a data
warehouse created with the sole purpose of feeding a data extraction
Theres a large difference also between running a MIQUEST query on a
practice server and exporting the *numbers*, and effectively taking
away a mirror of your hard drive to extract the information later,
with or without a promise to keep your secrets safe.
Has anyone heard any rationale explaining why the current system is inadequate?
On 24 April 2012 19:19, Trefor Roscoe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Not really. The implied consent that electronic records has associated with
> it assumes that backups to non local servers, and data management requiring
> streaming to remote storage is a legitimate use of the data that practices
> hold and are thus covered by the DPA requirements of handling data
> Never been tested though, but a lot of the untested bits of the DPA that we
> use day to day would not cause problems and objections would not be upheld.
> The Data Commissioner is quite sensible and the evolving case law seems to
> be sound. Basic tenet of the whole thing is that appropriate and necessary
> data handling does not contravene the DPA.
> (Pseudo specialist in medical data management
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saul Galloway
> Sent: 24 April 2012 17:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Emis act to require copy of GP records data
> On further pressing for details of what data they wish to upload from
> practices to their EMIS Central Reporting Service , EMIS say they are
> waiting for an answer from NHS Information Centre.
> Very curious.
> If uploading just some patient data to NHS spine required informing patients
> and publicity to each household and an opt out option, surely streaming " an
> up-to-date copy of your practice data " to the EMIS data warehouse requires
> the same consent?