Home Page Home Page
About SIN About SIN
Objectives Objectives
Activities Activities
Case Studies Case Studies
Letters Letters
Publications Publications
Contacts Contacts
Our Comments Our Comments
Join SIN Join SIN
Join SIN Join SIN
Our Comments


30th January 2009

56 SIGN SIN'S PETITION ON NUMBER 10 WEBSITE FOR PATIENTS' RIGHTS IN STATUTE

55. ARE YOU A VC (vexatious complainant) NHS STYLE?

10th June 2007

54 SIN WRITES IN WHO PFPS-ALLIANCE NEWSLETTER

14th November 2006

53.TELECONFERENCE WHO PFPS-ALLIANCE

52. GREAT SUPPORT FROM HERR FLORENZ MEP

8TH JULY 2006

51. THE EMASCULATION OF THE REDRESS BILL

30th. May 2006

50. WHERE IS THE MINISTER FOR PATIENT SAFETY?

49. TABLE OF MEDICAL ERRORS THRO'OUT EUROPE

48. IEU-ALLIANCE MEETS WITH MR KARL-HEINZ FLORENZ
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

47. IEU-ALLIANCE MEETS WITH MR JOHN BOWIS OBE MEP

46.IEU-ALLIANCE MEETS WITH COUNCIL OF EUROPE

45.IEU-ALLIANCE FOURTH CONVENTION STRASBOURG

10th. February 2006

44. SIN ATTENDS  NPSA  PATIENT SAFETY 2006 
CONFERENCE

26th January 2006

43. WHY NO PUBLICITY?
WHY THE DEAFENING SILENCE? 

42.SIN & MEMBERS OF IEU ALLIANCE AT
PRESTIGIOUS PATIENT SAFETY SUMMIT
NOVEMBER 2005 LONDON

41. THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 
IEU-ALLIANCE LONDON Nov. 2005 + photos
SUBMISSION OF IEU DECLARATION TO
DOWNING STREET &  D.of H. + photos

10th July 2005

40. SIN's  FULL PAGE STATEMENT IN HOUSE MAGAZINE
VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND & PATIENTS' RIGHTS IN STATUTE

39. 'HIT & RUN ' EXACT ANALOGY WITH MEDICAL ACCIDENTS

38. DECLARATION OF IEU 2005 
ALLIANCE OF PATIENT GROUPS

37.  SECOND CONVENTION OF IEU + PHOTOS

36. Formation of a new Pan-European organisation
IATROGENIC EUROPE UNITE IEU  + PHOTOS

4th May 2004

35. Are Medical Service Doctors Good Enough?

6th October 2003

34. Smallest cog in the wheel?......the GP

33. Excellent care .......................for some

14th. April 2003

32  BBC Website report on SIN's London Demo April 2002

31 Tax-payer Pays 3 Times over for Compensation

30. SOS - Hands off our medical records

29. Why the denial and cover up culture?

28. Types of Medical Mistakes Causes?

4th January 2003

27. Victim's Compensation Fund Imminent?

26. Managers Galore

16th December 2002

25. MRSA Epidemic: Official

24. Congratulations Mr Milburn:Reform at Last

23. New half page statement by SIN in House of Commons Magazine

22. 'Thumbs down' to British health care by EU doctors

4th May 2002

21. SIN's London Demonstration

31st. January 2002

20. Trust me I'm a doctor? No Fear!

19. Pandora's Box
(D.o.H. acknowledges at least 50 supressed scandals per year)

18. Q?: What do bad doctors & bad nurses  fear most?

17. Money is seldom the problem

16. Patient Bashing sinks  to New Depths

22nd August 2001

15. Victory for SIN: Victim's Compensation Fund

14. The aviation analogy refuted

13.Joint statement: seven point pledge issued 27th June,2001

12.Semantics of "no blame culture"

11. Public confirmation: "no blame & cover up culture"has flourished for years in the NHS

10. "No blame pact": so what's new?

9. Lament of the Iatrogenic Patient

8. SIN's Comments on the Brompton & Harefield Report

7.Background:Brompton & Harefield Independent Inquiries

6. Second Opinions!....What Second Opinions?

5. Health Select Committee Investigations

4. Damaged patients denied care

3. Lord Woolf's Inaugural Lecture 17 January 2001

2. The National Clinical Assessment Authority  

1. Medical Records - Data Protection Act 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





 


 
 

1. Medical Records: Data Protection ACT 1998  Return to Our Comments

SIN believes that one of the major routes to patient empowerment is the immediate access and copies of any documentation/test results relating to health care. One of the biggest advances to this end was the introduction of the Access to Health Records Act 1990. This Act has now been superseded by the Data Protection Act 1998, which came into force on 1st. March 2000, and also replaces the former 1984 Data Protection Act. However, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 still applies for access to records relating to the deceased 

The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to paper records as well as those held on computer. It is supervised by the Data Protection Commissioner, who is currently Elizabeth France. The Commissioner has the powers to consider individual complaints about the alleged infringement of rights and powers to ensure compliance.

There are eight enforceable principles of Data Protection as found at htp://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm. They say that the data must be: 

  • fairly and lawfully processed
  • processed for limited purposes 
  • adequate, relevant and not excessive
  • accurate 
  • not kept for longer than necessary 
  • processed in accordance with the data subject's rights.
  • secure
  • not transferred to countries without adequate protection
"Personal data covers both facts and opinions about the individual.It also includes information regarding the intentions of the data controller towards the individual, although in some limited circumstances exemptions will apply. With processing the definition is far wider than before. For example, it incorporates the concepts of "obtaining", "holding" and "disclosing"." The full explanation of the principles can be found on the above website.

Sections 7, 8 and 14 of the Act.are the relevant sections for health records.SIN's Observations:

Section Seven : Right of Access to Personal Data

There appears to be no rights for third parties to make applications for access on behalf of others eg. any individual who is without the mental capacity to make an application in his or her own right -whether adult or child.Compliance advice from The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner re: charges for granting subject access, is rather difficult to understand.
It would appear that there will be a standard charge of £10 for processing the automated records ( computer generated records). A £50 maximum fee for accessing and being supplied with copies in permanent form of manual or a combination of manual and automated records.

No charge to be made for a visual inspection of manual medical records provided that at least some of these were updated within a period of 40 days prior to the date of the application being made. 

Section Eight:Provisions Supplementary to Section Seven

If any information supplied under Section Seven (1) (c) (i) is supplied in an unintelligble terms, then the data must be accompanied by an explanation of these terms.

Section Fourteen: Rectification, Blocking, Erasure & Destruction

This section of the Act makes provision for inaccuracies to be rectified or removed

Under the DPA a patient is entitled to inspect their medical records. At the moment the maximum charge for copies of records appears to be £50 although it is not clear. The Data Controller must supply the information in 'permanent form'. This normally means a print -out or photocopy, but could also include copies of microfiches, x-rays or audio/video cassettes . The data Controller should normally give access within 40 days. Any unintelligble terms, such as computer codes, must be explained. The patient does not need to say why they want it. The Data Controller cannot refuse access because you might use the data to criticise the controller, complain or take legal action. This seems to be an important step forward in patients' gaining control over their own medical records.

The DPA covers all personal data kept in manual or computerised form. Such data covers both facts and opinions held about an individual. The Data Controller has a statutory obligation that whatever data is held on an individual must be accurate. The individual ( patient) can request for correction, providing the data is incorrect or misleading about a matter of fact, or contains an opinion based on data which is factually inaccurate or misleading. In such cases the Controller is obliged by Law  to correct, erase, destroy or block  the use of such information. Opinions cannot be challenged unless they are based on wrong facts

 Section Thirteen  (1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of the Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.

The DPA does not appear to allow patients themselves to add a Section 6(b) type notice. In our experience such Section 6(b) type notices were held in little regard by doctors or hospitals. Therefore, if the Trust or Heath Authorities are now obliged by Law to correct inaccurate records, this would seem to be an improvement. However, if they refuse to comply then the patient can seek advice from the Data Protection Information Commissioner, who can force the Trust or HA to correct the records. But the Information Commissioner has discretionary powers and may not act in favour of the patient, who would then have to resort to Court action.
 

Return to Our Comments