Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit

doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1031

BMJ 2000;321:1031-1032 ( 28 October )

Editorials

Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit

Overprotection could damage the public interest

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Across the world rapid changes in the law, technology, and society are reshaping the way identifiable information about patientsis handled. In Britain, doctors' longstanding common law dutyof confidentiality to their patients has been supplemented byrestrictions on processing electronic and paper based recordsin the Data Protection Act 1998, which came into force on 1 March2000. This month the United Kingdom's Medical Research Council(MRC) is the latest of several professional organisations to respondto these developments by updating its guidance on confidentialityand the use of personal information (see table on BMJ 's website).^1-4The MRC has provided invaluable, balanced guidance but there isstill a real risk that strict and selective application of theother directives could jeopardise audit, clinical governance,and observational epidemiological research. This would compromisepatient care and the publicinterest.

Britain has long had the opportunity for high quality observational epidemiology and health services . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study: Rustam Al-Shahi, Céline Vousden, Charles Warlow for the Scottish Intracranial Vascular Malformation Study (SIVMS) Steering Committee
BMJ 2005 331: 942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Using patient identifiable data without consent: Phillip Cox, Lesley Roberts, Sue Wilson, Barry Evans, Colin N Ramsay, Rustam Al-Shahi, and Charles Warlow
BMJ 2001 322: 858. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Baird, W, Jackson, R, Ford, H, Evangelou, N, Busby, M, Bull, P, Zajicek, J (2009). Holding personal information in a disease-specific register: the perspectives of people with multiple sclerosis and professionals on consent and access. J. Med. Ethics 35: 92-96 [Abstract] [Full text]
Jackson, C., Crossland, L., Dennis, M., Wardlaw, J., Sudlow, C. (2008). Assessing the impact of the requirement for explicit consent in a hospital-based stroke study. QJM 101: 281-289 [Abstract] [Full text]
Peekhaus, W. (2008). Research in the Biotech Age: Can Informational Privacy Compete?. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 28: 48-59 [Abstract]
Willison, D. J., Schwartz, L., Abelson, J., Charles, C., Swinton, M., Northrup, D., Thabane, L. (2007). Alternatives to Project-specific Consent for Access to Personal Information for Health Research: What Is the Opinion of the Canadian Public?. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14: 706-712 [Abstract] [Full text]
Buckley, B., Murphy, A. W, Byrne, M., Glynn, L. (2007). Selection bias resulting from the requirement for prior consent in observational research: a community cohort of people with ischaemic heart disease. Heart 93: 1116-1120 [Abstract] [Full text]
Haynes, C. L, Cook, G. A, Jones, M. A (2007). Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: lessons learnt from developing a disease register. J. Med. Ethics 33: 302-307 [Abstract] [Full text]
Ford, H. L (2006). The effect of consent guidelines on a multiple sclerosis register. Mult Scler 12: 104-107 [Abstract]
Al-Shahi, R., Vousden, C., Warlow, C., for the Scottish Intracranial Vascular Malformatio, (2005). Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 331: 942- [Abstract] [Full text]
Al-Shahi, R. (2005). Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments. JRSM 98: 444-447 [Full text]
Wager, E. (2004). Experiences of the BMJ ethics committee. BMJ 329: 510-512 [Full text]
Ward, H. J T, Cousens, S. N, Smith-Bathgate, B., Leitch, M., Everington, D., Will, R. G, Smith, P. G (2004). Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. BMJ 329: 277-279 [Full text]
Dieppe, P., Bartlett, C., Davey, P., Doyal, L., Ebrahim, S. (2004). Balancing benefits and harms: the example of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BMJ 329: 31-34 [Full text]
Donnan, P T, Wei, L, Steinke, D T, Phillips, G, Clarke, R, Noone, A, Sullivan, F M, MacDonald, T M, Davey, P G (2004). Presence of bacteriuria caused by trimethoprim resistant bacteria in patients prescribed antibiotics: multilevel model with practice and individual patient data. BMJ 328: 1297- [Abstract] [Full text]
Tu, J. V., Willison, D. J., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Richards, J. A., Laupacis, A., Kapral, M. K., the Investigators in the Registry of the Canadian, (2004). Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. NEJM 350: 1414-1421 [Abstract] [Full text]
Lynn, J (2004). When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care 13: 67-70 [Abstract] [Full text]
Robling, M R, Hood, K, Houston, H, Pill, R, Fay, J, Evans, H M (2004). Public attitudes towards the use of primary care patient record data in medical research without consent: a qualitative study. J. Med. Ethics 30: 104-109 [Abstract] [Full text]
Kass, N. E., Natowicz, M. R., Hull, S. C., Faden, R. R., Plantinga, L., Gostin, L. O., Slutsman, J. (2003). The Use of Medical Records in Research: What Do Patients Want?. J Law Med Ethics 31: 429-433
Al-Shahi, R, Fang, J S Y, Lewis, S C, Warlow, C P (2002). Prevalence of adults with brain arteriovenous malformations: a community based study in Scotland using capture-recapture analysis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 73: 547-551 [Abstract] [Full text]
GILBODY, S. M., HOUSE, A. O., SHELDON, T. A. (2002). Outcomes research in mental health: Systematic review. Br. J. Psychiatry 181: 8-16 [Abstract] [Full text]
Verity, C., Nicoll, A., Manning, D. (2002). Education and debate: Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance * Commentary: Don't waive consent lightly---involve the public. BMJ 324: 1210-1213 [Full text]
Leslie, S. J, Webb, D. J (2001). GMC's guidance may inhibit research. BMJ 322: 1601-1601 [Full text]
Cox, P., Roberts, L., Wilson, S., Evans, B., Ramsay, C. N, Al-Shahi, R., Warlow, C. (2001). Using patient identifiable data without consent. BMJ 322: 858-858 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

'Confidentiality' should be a protecting principle not an excuse for non-co-operation: I C M Paterson
bmj.com, 31 Oct 2000 [Full text]
Using patient-identifiable data without consent: Martin Dace
bmj.com, 9 Nov 2000 [Full text]
Re: Using patient-identifiable data without consent: Phillip Cox
bmj.com, 10 Nov 2000 [Full text]
Argument for consent may invalidate research and stigmatise certain patient groups: Lesley Roberts, et al.
bmj.com, 15 Nov 2000 [Full text]
Surveillance of communicable diseases: Barry Evans
bmj.com, 22 Nov 2000 [Full text]
Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit: Lesley Roberts
bmj.com, 29 Nov 2000 [Full text]
Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit: Roger Johnson
bmj.com, 6 Dec 2000 [Full text]