This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

BMA: Subject access requests to GPs increased by more than a third since GDPR

GPs are dealing with a barrage of subject access requests since the new GDPR data protection regulations were introduced earlier this year.

A BMA survey of 1,500 GPs showed that these have increased over a third (36%) since the rules -  which mean that GPs can no longer charge a nominal fee for such requests - came into force.

The BMA's GP Committee said the requests, a majority of which come from companies such as solicitors acting on behalf of patients, are taking away valuable GP time that could be spent treating patients.

The BMA asked GP practices how many SARs they received each month on average in the year prior to the introduction of GDPR in May, and then how many they had received in the last calendar month.

It found that the average before May was 8.57 requests a month, while the average received in the past month was 11.68, suggesting a rise of 36%.

The survey further found that 77% of the requests were made by companies, including solicitors and insurers, acting on patients' behalf, while just 22% came from patients themselves.

The BMA blamed GDPR legislation, following which GPs can no longer charge a 'reasonable' fee for SARs, but they must be done for free unless the request is 'manifestly unfounded' or 'excessive'.

GPC chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: 'While patients have every right to access their own medical records, the majority of these requests are from companies potentially exploiting a system by which they no longer have to pay out of their own pocket and so the cost is transferred to the NHS – coming at a serious price for general practice.'

He pointed out that these costs are not covered by the GP contract, adding that the GPC is pushing for this to change in ongoing negotiations with the Government regarding the 2019/20 contract.

He said: 'The work required to process records or produce reports is not part of the NHS contract, which means doctors and their teams are now having to cope with this growing workload at the expense of other important activities – and crucially, time spent on this is taken away from providing core services to patients.

'If practices are expected to meet the demand for these requests and practices are unable to charge a fee for reports to cover their costs, then the Government must provide funding, and we are actively pushing for this in ongoing contract negotiations.'

Dr Vautrey further called on the health secretary - whose agenda is heavily focused on digitalisation of the NHS - to 'commit to an IT solution that would allow all practices to offer patients access to their entire record in a safe and secure way', reducing the workload related to SARs.

He said: 'This would relieve GPs and their staff of some of the administrative workload burden of dealing with such requests, prove far more cost effective in the long-term and empower patients by having a greater understanding of their care.'

In August, GP leaders asked practices write to their MPs to complain about the use of data protection laws by solicitors and insurance companies that were 'bombarding' practice with requests for information. 


Readers' comments (9)

  • National Hopeless Service

    We have started advising patients of the request. Some weren't even aware of what they had consented to. Printing off the full records and advising the patient to collect it, redact whatever they want and telling them that it is their responsibility to post it securely to the solicitor etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Neil Bhatia

    We do the same. Patient *always* collects the SAR.

    We can't (usually) charge - all we can do is limit the cost to us, and put up private fees elsewhere to compensate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And one wonders why GPs are so stressed in this country. They try to make you work not for free but at a loss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Make the patients collects and send,some frequent fliers are costing £25 + in postage pass it on to the punter,they need to get used to things costing,as the current state of affairs healthcare wil start costing them.They need to get used to it despite the best efforts of BMA,RCGP etc.Market forces will out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the person who holds the data is responsible for dealing with the requests, as we are all part of the national spine where records are held, are not nhs england responsible for dealing with such requests now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They should be.They control the data and seem to be able to extract what they want at will.We are not the data controller now we are just the patsy lumbered with that name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David Banner

    So GDPR created more work for less money?
    Fits perfectly with every other aspect of modern general practice then.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And they want more GP partners, always based on this basic tenet, more work, less pay.
    Mathematically, profit per item of work has fallen 60% since 2004.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How does complete access to electronic record help? The bit that takes the time for the GPs (as opposed to the admin staff) is the redacting of third party information - which can't be done to an electronic record (how do you redact info from hospital letters that have been scanned in, for example?

    And we are still left with the issue of coercive control and third parties pressuring people into giving up their secure passwords. We have some patients who will never get electronic access because we don't feel it's safe for them to, but we can't identify everyone to whom this applies.

    I fully support patients having access to their complete records, I just think that we need to be funded properly to do the redacting, as well as the admin costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say