People have a responsibility to share data, NHS England’s Tim Kelsey said when speaking to Highland Marketing earlier in January.
The national director for patients and information was reflecting on arguments put forward by several high profile charities. Opting-out of care.data could in fact be damaging to the future health service and patient care, they warned.
Kelsey agreed. “Those people who opt-out, do deprive society of fragments of intelligence that could turn out to be very, very important,” he said. “People have a responsibility to share data safely so that other patients can benefit and we can build a high quality health service.”
Responsibility has certainly become a core issue in the care.data debate, and in more ways than one. The responsibility to handle patients’ sensitive data securely, in particular, has been stirring some very passionate discussion.
And now, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – the UK’s data protection watchdog, has re-clarified rights and responsibilities with some very astute observations, including the fact that there is no legal right to opt-out under the Data Protection Act (DPA).
Dawn Monaghan, the ICO’s strategic liaison group manager, made this clear in her new blog: “Neither GPs (as data controller) or patients (as data subjects) have the right to stop that information being taken into the [Health and Social Care] Information Centre,” she said. “There is no legal ‘opt out’ under the DPA.”
The health secretary has nevertheless still provided patients with the choice of opting-out. But the absence of a legal right is down to measures under the Health and Social Care Act, said Monaghan. This statutory enactment “requires the disclosure of the data, which means the data becomes exempt from the main parts of the DPA,” she said.
Yet despite being largely exempt from the DPA, care.data does still have more implications when it comes to responsibilities as a result of the very same data protection law – responsibilities that have fallen on the shoulders of GPs.
“Responsibility for letting patients know what is happening falls to GPs, as the data controllers,” Monaghan added in her blog. “It might seem unfair that this responsibility doesn’t fall on NHS England, who are instructing the data collection, or on the Information Centre who will collect and use it, but the DPA focuses squarely on whoever originally collected, holds and is going to disclose the data (the data controller) – in this case the GPs.”
So is there good reason that one in four GPs are against care.data? And perhaps one of these key reasons is not because GPs do not see the value in sharing information to improve patient care as commonly construed across the national press, but rather that the buck lies with them.
Indeed, NHS England has in fact put forward some very strong arguments for data sharing in care.data and its crucial importance in improving health services.
NHS England has also been praised by the ICO for its “sensible approach” in helping GPs across the country with their communications responsibilities, through leaflets, social media and a helpline.
And on the subject of communications responsibilities, has the ICO itself gone beyond the call of duty? Due to DPA exemptions, the ICO does in fact have no control or responsibility for how NHS England and GPs choose to communicate care.data messages to patients. But amidst confusion and negativity around the initiative, it has nevertheless produced its own communications activity. Communications which should be applauded for their clarity in what has become quite a tricky subject for many people to understand.
His most recent media experience has involved following healthcare and public sector technology developments closely, on which he wrote daily news and features for both print and online titles.
Prior to that he was the editor of several influential specialist publications read by tens of thousands of people.
Matthew has specialised in areas including politics, public services, technology, defence, international development and e-government and has experience interviewing and commissioning high profile figures ranging from Cabinet level government ministers through to senior company executives and even heads of the armed forces.
He has strong writing skills, a solid understanding of what journalists are looking for and professional experience in the social media environment, having managed accounts followed by thousands of users, ranging from senior civil servants to leading politicians.
Prior to becoming a journalist he worked in PR and marketing, building online marketing strategies, conducting marketing research and achieving regular positive media coverage for employers.
“Achieving a strong media presence places a business in a position of authority. Those who get their comments published are the experts – they are the people the market should turn to for the answers.”
A little about Matthew:In his spare time Matthew is passionate about photography. He has also performed in contemporary theatre and community arts projects. His interests include travelling, cooking and live music. He is fascinated by politics and you can even find him attempting to salsa dance at least once every week.
Latest posts by Matthew D'Arcy (see all)
- Seven fab sessions from the seventh Fab Change Day - 22nd October 2020
- HM interview: Roy Lilley – ‘no going back on positive change’ - 15th October 2020
- Guest interview: Pat Symonds – ‘The NHS has not seen the last of Formula One’ - 27th August 2020
- Covid-19 – the starting grid of cross industry collaboration? - 27th July 2020
- Be careful what you claim in PR - 8th May 2019
Want more articles like this one?
HM blog posts, tips and advice