BMJ  2006;332:130-131 (21 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7534.130

Editorial

Using personal health information in medical research

Overzealous interpretation of UK laws is stifling epidemiological research

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

Recent growth in the regulation of research involving patients or their personal data in the United Kingdom—such as research governance, the European clinical trials directive, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Tissue Act 2004, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and guidance from the General Medical Council—has caused delays, higher costs, and sometimes cessation of research projects.^{1 2} Rules around privacy, confidentiality, and consent have become particularly complex and confusing.

The people appointed to protect personal health data sometimes seem to feel no need to facilitate research. These include Caldicott guardians (board members and senior health professionals appointed by each health authority, NHS trust, and primary care group to safeguard the confidentiality of patient information) and data protection officers who often work with medical records departments. These guardians and officers and their organisations are averse to risk and often restrict or deny access to personal medical data, interpreting the Data . . . [Full text of this article]

Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals, Liverpool L7 8XP
(twalley@liv.ac.uk)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry

Geraldine Barrett, Jackie A Cassell, Janet L Peacock, and Michel P Coleman
BMJ 2006 332: 1068-1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Consent, confidentiality, and the Data Protection Act

Amy Iversen, Kathleen Liddell, Nicola Fear, Matthew Hotopf, and Simon Wessely
BMJ 2006 332: 165-169. [Full Text] [PDF]

Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population

Hester J T Ward, Simon N Cousens, Blaire Smith-Bathgate, Margaret Leitch, Dawn Everington, Robert G Will, and Peter G Smith
BMJ 2004 329: 277-279. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Education and debate: Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance • Commentary: Don't waive consent lightlyinvolve the public

Chris Verity, Angus Nicoll, and Donal Manning
BMJ 2002 324: 1210-1213. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Brown, L., Parker, M., Dixon-Woods, M. (2008). Whose interest? British newspaper reporting of use of medical records for research. J Health Serv Res Policy 13: 140-145 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Metcalfe, C, Martin, R M, Noble, S, Lane, J A, Hamdy, F C, Neal, D E, Donovan, J L (2008). Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. J. Med. Ethics 34: 37-40 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Masterton, G., Shah, P. (2007). How to approach a research ethics committee. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 13: 220-227 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hilbrich, L., Sleight, P. (2006). Progress and problems for randomized clinical trials: from streptomycin to the era of megatrials. Eur Heart J 27: 2158-2164 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Barrett, G., Cassell, J. A, Peacock, J. L, Coleman, M. P (2006). National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry. BMJ 332: 1068-1072 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Patients, privacy, confidentiality and consent - where's the evidence?

Brian Buckley
bmj.com, 1 Mar 2006 [Full text]