Metcalfe C, Martin R M, Noble S, Lane J A, Hamdy F C, Neal D E, Donovan J L
Department of Social Medicine, Bristol University, Bristol, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Jan;34(1):37-40. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.019661.
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 560,000pound 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.
英国现行立法正在影响旨在造福国民健康服务体系(NHS)和公众健康的基于病历的研究的可行性和成本效益。尽管此前的评论员将重点放在了1998年的《数据保护法》上,但对于希望在未经书面同意的情况下获取病历的公共卫生研究人员来说,2001年的《健康与社会关怀法》才是关键立法。该法案要求研究人员向患者信息咨询小组(PIAG)申请在未经书面许可的情况下获取病历的许可。我们呈现了一个案例研究,内容是为了开展一个大规模公共卫生研究项目而从PIAG获得必要许可所需开展的工作。根据我们的经验,花了八个月才获得访问在全科诊所登记的个人基本身份信息的许可,而关于我们是否可以在未经同意的情况下访问病历中的临床信息的决定则花了18个月。这样的延迟给资助研究带来了几乎无法克服的困难,在我们的案例中,在研究人员的大部分工作在三年资助期的第三年之前被禁止的情况下,仍花费了56万英镑的公共和慈善资金用于研究人员。我们最后指出,将PIAG的职责归还给研究伦理委员会,并允许许多公共卫生研究项目采用“退出”同意的方式,可以避免当前的许多问题。