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

GP hit with contract notice over plan to opt all patients out of

Exclusive A GP faces possible termination of his contract over his plan to opt all his patients out of NHS England’s flagship data-sharing scheme, Pulse can reveal.

Managers from Thames Valley area team have sent Oxford GP Dr Gordon Gancz a ‘notice of remediation’ to force him to remove any opt-out codes for he had added without explicit patient consent, saying that he was in breach of his contract.

The notice - sent last week - also says that he must ‘remedy this breach’ by removing notices on his practice website about his plan to opt all his patients out of the scheme.

Managers said that his actions were in breach of NHS England’s requirement that ‘patients will automatically be included unless they indicate to their practice that they wish to opt out’.

Dr Gancz now faces either taking the action specified in the letter, or potentially having his contract terminated.

The move comes as privacy campaigners write to every practice in the country urging them to follow Dr Gancz’s lead and opt all their patients out of the scheme. But the letter from managers to Dr Gancz shows that practices may face contractual action from NHS England if they do this, as warned by the GPC last year.

GPs have a duty to inform patients about the scheme under the Data Protection Act, but also are required to share their data with the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) under the Health and Social Care Act.

Pulse previously revealed that Dr Gancz was one of two GPs who intended to opt out all his patients from the scheme, although his name was withheld from publication at that time.

The letter to Dr Gancz from the Thames Valley Area team says: ‘We wish to discuss the remediation needed because you have published on your practice website information about the extraction indicating that you intend opting your patients out of the data extraction unless they contact you to opt in.

‘This is contrary to NHS England’s requirement that patients will automatically be included unless they indicate to their practice that they wish to opt out.’

The letter adds that: ‘In accordance with schedule 6 part 8, regulation 115 of the NHS (GMS contract) regulations 2004, NHS England requires you to remedy this breach by taking the following steps: 1) Remove the second and third paragraphs of latest news, in the noticeboard section of your website; and 2) Remove any opt out codes which you have applied to your patients’ medical records without their prior consent.’

But Dr Gancz told Pulse that the letter shows a ‘disregard for patient’s interests’, and that he would not be changing the information on his website.

He said: ‘It will be interesting to see what power they have, if any, to stop one simply stating what is the case. People are being bulldozed into giving consent by default - that is on my website and it’s nothing but the truth - how can they tell me to take it off?’

He added: ‘The logic of this email is that unless I give in to the bullying of NHS England and illegally - as defined by the Data Protection Act and the GMC - release my patients’ confidential information, I shall have my contract to work as a GP withdrawn.

‘How many of those students who have passed through Oxford University in the past would like details of their private lives made available to others? Exactly the same applies to every patient in the country.’

NHS England’s Thames Valley area team told Pulse that: ‘Under the Health and Social Care Act, practices have a statutory duty to share personal confidential information about their patients with the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

‘The Data Protection Act 1998 sets out a framework under which such data can be shared. This framework includes ensuring that people understand how their data are used and shared, and their rights to object. NHS England has provided guidance and support to GP practices to comply with these duties.’

Meanwhile, the patient advocacy group Patient Concern, has sent all GP practices in England a email criticising the awareness campaign about run by NHS England urging practices to either opt out patients who previously opted out of the Summary Care Record, or apply an opt out to all their patients.

The email says: ‘There are many reasons why patients may not get around to opting-out. That does not mean that they have agreed to release of their most sensitive medical details.’

NHS England tightens up safeguards on sharing identifiable patient data

Managers have said that identifiable patient information will now not initially be able to be released under the exemption ‘Section 251’ clause unless there is an ‘overriding public interest’.

The admission comes in a risk assessment released last month, and after a Pulse investigation revealed the Section 251 exemption was used multiple times in recent months to enable the release of existing identifiable patient information.

Under Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006, the health secretary is able to set aside patient confidentiality for ‘defined medical purposes’, but must take advice from the independent Confidential Advisory Group.

NHS England said: ‘In order to establish trust in from patients and healthcare professionals, personal confidential data collected for will initially only be disclosed where there is an overriding public interest even though disclosures under Regulation 5 [section 251] or with patient consent would be legally permissible.’

Related images

  • IT - computer - computer screen - monitor - online records - online

Readers' comments (25)

  • Alan Shortt

    clearly the man is a hero and colleagues should fall in behind him

    if however GPs have a contractual relationship with the NHS then the NHS managers do have the legal right to pursue their agenda by enforcing the contractual obligations - never mind this contract is regularly renegotiated on high without most of the signatories' individual agreement or consent to specific changes... and never mind complying may well involve breaching other laws and de facto human rights

    I hope the BMA GPCC whatever stays behind him or failing that as i said the rank and file also says "No More" otherwise might i suggest mass resignation withholding BMA LMC CCG subscriptions etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree this has forced all these parties to now state their position on this scheme so that the public can see whose side GPs are on; that of the government and those wanting to profit out of their private inormation, or their patients?
    Remember the words of the government:- "No decision about me without me" and that should be your ultimate steer!
    Having said that - what would be more in the public interest than the medical records of everyone who has attended Oxford University, I'm sure some of Mr Hunt's personal friends would be very interested in getting ahold of these at a nominal cost when branching out into 'medical research'. On recent evidence I dare say this government, and that of the US and elsewhere for that matter, would take an interest in getting hold of this data via their relationships with companies who handle it!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bravo Gordon Granz! Forced to undergo 'remediation'??.strewth sounds like the commie re education progs.will you be sent to the gulag if you refuse or will enough colleagues back you up......remains to be seen. Can we have a clear statement from the BMA; the GMC; the Caldicott Guardians and where is the voice of Liberty even. It is all very well for those who publish journals such as ~Roger Jones, see his article which makes unsubstantiated claims that surveys find the public supports the scheme (despite thousands of people have already rung the helpline - why would they if all is hunky dory)or Tony Calland of BMA expressing personal views - they are not actually practicing and will not be on the receiving end of potential legal cases.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The BMA will do nothing. The RCGP needs to step in. Will she do a better job than CG?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This seems a good time to push back this nonsense. surely this needs to go through the courts, time for the BMA or a public campaign to support this GP

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ironic that patient uk are worried about data protection when they got hold of every practices email address in officially and sent an email to them - double standards!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How many of those criticizing the BMA are prepared to go down the same route as the noble Dr. Granz??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Full admiration to his audacity and courage. We all have our 'baggages' and 'impedimenta' when we come to situations like this.
    This is the evil of Health and Social Care Bill , including section 75, ladies and gentleman.
    The man is testing the boundary of the law in his noble way ( in contrast to those who are trying to ingratiate with the politicians) and is willing to sacrifice.
    Editor of Pulse , I suggest you to launch a petition to support this non co-operative movement and get people sign up .
    'There is a point far out there when the structure fails you , when the rules aren't weapon anymore. They are shackles letting the bad guys get ahead.' Jim Gordon , Dark Knight rises ..........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Dr Gancz,
    I would be very happy to receive a copy of the letter, please send it to me at the GPC.
    Dr Paul Cundy
    Chair GPC IT Committee

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Please keep sending your comments .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say