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 'paused' yet again due to confidentiality review

All pilots of the scheme are ‘paused’ until the New Year due to a review of security of confidential medical information in the health service, claims a CCG.

The CCG says the pilot schemes have been paused because health secretary Jeremy Hunt has ask Dame Fiona Caldicott, the data guardian for England, to provide advice on the wording for a new model of patient consent and ‘opt-outs’. 

NHS Somerset CCG said they were planning a mail-out of information to patients registered with the 56 participating GP practices in the pilot towards the end of this month, but that will now not go ahead because of the review.

A spokesperson for NHS Somerset CCG told Pulse that they were under the impression that all pilot sites would not be able to begin work again on the pilots until January 2016.

What guidance is being developed?

  • Dame Fiona’s review will develop ‘clear guidelines for the protection of personal data against which every NHS and care organisation will be held to account’. She will also provide advice on the wording for a new model of consents and opt-outs to be used by the programme.
  • The CQC will also carry out a review of standards of data security for patients’ confidential data across the NHS.

Source: NHS England

He added: ‘The purpose of the pathfinder pilot has always been to help NHS England with the testing and evaluation of patient literature and the process by which coded patient data might eventually be extracted from their GP medical records.

‘Family doctors are as eager as patients to ensure that we get any process right and patients are provided with the necessary reassurance to know and understand that information from their medical records will continue to be kept safe, secure and confidential.’

The scheme to extract and share patient data from GP records was delayed for the first time in February 2014 after concerns that the public were not aware of its benefits, with a national leafletting campaign failing to reach two thirds of houses.

New pilots of the scheme look set to be delayed again, although NHS England told Pulse that work in ‘pathfinder’ areas ‘continues as planned in the autumn and ‘will form part of the review’.

The scheme has been plagued with problems, health managers have already admitted they have been unable to implement 700,000 patient opt-outs to GP data being shared, with GP leaders claiming that their admission demonstrates the ‘mess’ that the Government has created.

NHS England’s national director for patients and information Tim Kelsey said: ‘The new measures announced will strengthen the public’s confidence in the security of their data.

‘We recognise that patients have concerns about data safety and we will do everything we can to protect their information and build their trust. It is imperative we listen to the public and address all their concerns.

‘Jeremy has stressed the importance of and we will continue to work with the pathfinder areas over the coming weeks and months.’

Readers' comments (7)

  • Did anybody notice the silent revloution that took place recently - The whole responsibility for care and transfer of patient records was entrusted to a private company Capita who is taking over from the PCAs. We have had a hue and cry with regards to Summary Care Records being available to Inusrance Companies but not a whisper this time.
    And this, despite NHSE agreeing that the ''short period of due diligence is (still) ongoing...''- as per the publication Gateway Ref nr :03947 dated 14.08.2015
    Would you entrust so much sensitive data to a Private company before the due diligence process was complete? Speaks volumes of our lawmakers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Exactly my argument from Day 1 : it is about trust and credibility of those who are to deliver , regardless how noble the original ideology was......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I had the impression that most of the public's concerns were less with the technical ability of the HSCIC/NHS England to prevent unlawful access to patient identifiable data (or data which could be reidentified) than with the stated objectives (and lack of clarity about the end users) of the data once it had been extracted and combined into even richer (and therefore more reidentifiable) data sets.
    I'm not clear that the intentions of NHS England have been made clear to the satisfaction of the public or the professions and other stakeholders.
    Could someone reassure me - convincingly?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think there are concerns about both intention and competence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • National Hopeless Service

    How much has this utter shambles cost?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Could someone reassure me - convincingly?"

    Of course not.

    The public, although they have apparently been "informed" know little about this.

    If you said "Do you know what Care.Data is?" to every patient I suspect 1-2% would know.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't see an opt out from Capita having access to sensitive information.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say