"anonymized" patient info.

[Peter Marshall <techdiff@ix.netcom.com>]

> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7219/1221/a

> BMJ 1999;319:1221
> ( 6 November )                

> BMA's patient
> confidentiality rules are      
> deemed unlawful               

> Clare Dyer, legal              
> correspondent , BMJ
>                                 
> New BMA guidelines on         
> patient confidentiality
> have been branded            
> unlawful by the
> Association of Community      
> Health Councils for
> England and Wales, the
> statutory body                
> representing patients         
> interests in the NHS.

> The disagreement centres
> on the use of anonymised patient data for audit, research, or commercial
> purposes. Guidance from the BMA says that the disclosure of "truly anonymous
> information does not breach confidentiality," whereas the association of
> community health councils disagrees, claiming that it is extremely difficult
> to "completely anonymise patient information," so that individuals may still
> end up being identified.
> 
> It claims that the BMA should have awaited the outcome of a forthcoming
> appeal court case before issuing the guidance.
> 
> Marion Chester, the association's legal officer, said that she suspected
> that the BMA had brought the guidance out before the court case in a bid to
> influence the court. The General Medical Council, which is intervening in
> the appeal, has postponed the issue of its updated guide on confidentiality,
> which gives similar advice to the BMA's.
> 
> The appeal, by the computer company Source Informatics,is against a High
> Court ruling that the collection and sale of data on doctors' prescribing
> habits breaches confidentiality even though the data are anonymised.
> 
> The four day hearing is set to begin on 29 or 30 November. The case, which
> hinges on the issue of implied consent, is of huge importance for the use of
> anonymised patient data not only by commercial companies but for public
> interest purposes, including medical research and statistics.
> 
> The Department of Health is a party to the case, and the GMC, the Medical
> Research Council, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry,
> and the National Pharmaceutical Association are intervening to present
> arguments to the court.
> 
> The association of community health councils, which cannot afford the cost
> of intervening, will submit a written brief. It has consulted Richard Gordon
> QC, whose opinion is expected next week. He has already given an opinion
> that the GMC's similar draft guidance was unlawful in several key respects.
> 
> The association said that it was concerned that information about patients'
> medical conditions would be used without their consent and that anonymised
> information would not prevent individuals from being identified.
> 
> Donna Covey, the association's director, said: "Most people visiting their
> GP, dentist, or hospital consultant assume that their medical information is
> confidential. In fact this is not always the case. It is in everybody's
> interests that patients feel that they can speak openly and in confidence to
> their healthcare providers. We would like to see the BMA look again at their
> guidance to take account of these concerns."
> 
> Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of ethics, said: "There are so many
> people asking us questions about confidentiality that we have to produce
> information on best practice. This is information that has been available
> and in the public domain for a long time.
> 
> We have flagged up that there is a case coming up and as soon as the
> decision is available we will put it on the [BMA's] website."

> © British Medical Journal 1999