Row Over Health Records Review Secrecy

Campaigners this week alleged that the Department of Health (DH) had broken undertakings to keep fees low for patient access to manual health records and had further worsened the situation by conducting a review of health records and data protection in secret.

The DH issued a defence against some reports of the row, but conceded that, in the light of the protest from the Campaign for Freedom of Information (CFFI), the review group looking at health records and data protection “would be releasing as much information as possible.” None was available as E-Health Insider went to press.

The seeds of the argument were sown in 1998 when most provisions of the Access to Health Records Act were repealed and incorporated into the 1998 Data Protection Act.

The CFFI says a Home Office consultation paper gave specific undertakings that the £10 fee for access to manual records and the response times to requests for records to be produced would not be changed.

The undertakings were broken, according the Campaign, which says there is now a £50 maximum fee for producing manual records, though the electronic records fee is still £10. Furthermore, the Campaign claims the 21 day accelerated response period for access to information recorded in the previous 40 days has been dropped, along with the patient’s right to add a note to records setting out a disagreement with facts or opinions [ the Campaign’s italics] recorded in them.

Campaign director, Maurice Frankel, says, “Although the DPA improved patients’ rights in certain ways, there was no acknowledgement at the time that these particular rights were being weakened.”

The argument about restoring the rights rumbled on until Mr Frankel discovered recently that a review of health records and data protection had been set up without publicity in May 2002. He wrote to the civil servant in charge in January asking for access to agendas, minutes and papers for the review.

His request was turned down by the official who claimed that release of the papers “would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion which is supporting the development of policy.”

Mr Frankel fired off a four page letter on 17 February detailing the developments since 1998 and challenging the secrecy surrounding the review. He also decided to go public.

In response to the Campaign’s allegation about rapid access to records and fees, the DH said, “Rapid access to health records for patients remains a government goal and commitments such as that made in the NHS Plan to copy clinical correspondence to patients are still being taken forward.

“However, the need to review the amount that should be charged for access in October 2001, and subsequently the current review of numerous aspects of how health records are managed under the Data Protection Act 1998 have prevented DH from publishing definitive guidance.”

Responding to the allegation that patients rights to amend incorrect records have been curbed, the DH replied, “It has always been and remains DH policy that where an individual feels that information on their health record is inaccurate they are entitled to have a statement detailing their views appended to their health record.

”Where information is factually inaccurate provision exists under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the removal and destruction of such information from health records where this information is causing, or is likely to cause unwarranted alternatively or substantial, unwarranted distress to the individual. Data are inaccurate if they are incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact.”

The statement did not, however, deal with the Campaign’s assertion of the patient’s right to have damaging or inaccurate opinions about them removed.