Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group

被引:22
作者
Metcalfe, C. [1 ]
Martin, R. M. [1 ]
Noble, S. [1 ]
Lane, J. A. [1 ]
Hamdy, F. C. [2 ]
Neal, D. E. [3 ]
Donovan, J. L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Dept Social Med, Bristol BS8 2PR, Avon, England
[2] Univ Sheffield, Acad Urol, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Dept Oncol, Cambridge, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1136/jme.2006.019661
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Current UK legislation is impacting upon the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of medical record-based research aimed at benefiting the NHS and the public heath. Whereas previous commentators have focused on the Data Protection Act 1998, the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is the key legislation for public health researchers wishing to access medical records without written consent. The Act requires researchers to apply to the Patient Information Advisory Group (PIAG) for permission to access medical records without written permission. We present a case study of the work required to obtain the necessary permissions from PIAG in order to conduct a large scale public health research project. In our experience it took eight months to receive permission to access basic identifying information on individuals registered at general practices, and a decision on whether we could access clinical information in medical records without consent took 18 months. Such delays pose near insurmountable difficulties to grant funded research, and in our case (sic)560 000 of public and charitable money was spent on research staff while a large part of their work was prohibited until the third year of a three year grant. We conclude by arguing that many of the current problems could be avoided by returning PIAG's responsibilities to research ethics committees, and by allowing "opt-out'' consent for many public health research projects.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 40
页数:4
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] *AC MED SCI, 2005, PERS DAT PUBL GOOD U
  • [2] Bias from. requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: Prospective, population based study
    Al-Shahi, R
    Vousden, C
    Warlow, C
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7522): : 942 - 945
  • [3] [Anonymous], J HLTH SERVICES RES
  • [4] National survey of British public's views on use of identifiable medical data by the National Cancer Registry
    Barrett, G
    Cassell, JA
    Peacock, JL
    Coleman, MP
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7549): : 1068 - 1070A
  • [5] Boyd P., 2003, J Health Serv Res Policy, V8 Suppl 1, P24, DOI [10.1258/135581903766468846, DOI 10.1258/135581903766468846]
  • [6] Cassell J, 2002, J MED ETHICS, V28, P315
  • [7] Donovan J, 2003, Health Technol Assess, V7, P1
  • [8] Epidemiology - Consent, confidentiality, and the Data Protection Act
    Iversen, A
    Liddell, K
    Fear, N
    Hotopf, M
    Wessely, S
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 332 (7534): : 165 - 169
  • [9] Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies
    Junghans, C
    Feder, G
    Hemingway, H
    Timmis, A
    Jones, M
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7522): : 940 - 942
  • [10] Effective PSA contamination in the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer
    Otto, SJ
    van der Cruijsen, IW
    Liem, MK
    Korfage, IJ
    Lous, JJ
    Schröder, FH
    de Koning, HJ
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2003, 105 (03) : 394 - 399