Dear NHS England Patients & Information Directorate,
We’ve been very patient patients in the care.data pause. Please can we have some answers now?
I would like to call for greater transparency and openness about the promises made to the public, project processes & policies and your care.data communication plans.
In 2013, in the Health Service Journal Mr. Kelsey wrote:
“When patients are ignored, they are most at risk; that was the central conclusion of the report by Robert Francis into Stafford hospital.
Don Berwick, in his safety review, said the NHS should be “engaging, empowering and hearing patients and their carers all the time.
“That has been my mission since I started as National Director for Patients and Information: to support health and care services transform transparency and participation.“
It is time to walk-the-talk for care.data under this banner of transparency, participation and open government.
Response to the Listening exercises
The care.data listening phase, introduced by the pause announced on February 18th, has captured a mass of questions, the majority of which still remain unaddressed.
At one of these sessions, [the 1-hr session on June 17th Open House, linking ca. 100 people at each of the locations in Basingstoke, Leicester, London, and York] participants were promised that our feedback would be shared with us later in the summer, and posted online. After the NHS AGM on Sept 18th I was told it would happen ‘soon’. It is still not in the public domain.
At every meeting all the unanswered questions, on post-it notes, in table-group minutes or scribbled flipcharts, were gathered ‘to be answered at a later date’. When will that be?
To date, there has been no published information which addresses the unanswered event questions.
It was acknowledged through the Partridge Review of past use of our hospital records that this HES data is not anonymous. The extent of its sale to commercial third-parties and use by police and the Home Office was revealed. This is our medical data we gave to hospitals and in our wider medical use for our care. Why are we the last to hear it’s being accessed by all sorts of people who are not at all involved in our clinical care?
Even for commissioning purposes it is unclear how these datasharing reasons are justified when the Caldicott Review said extracting identifiable data for risk stratification or commissioning could not be assumed under some sort of ‘consent deal’?
“The Review Panel found that commissioners do not need dispensation from confidentiality, human rights and data protection law…” [The Information Governance review, ch7]
The 251 approval just got extended *again* – until 30th April 2015. If you can’t legally extract data without repeat approvals from on high, then maybe it’s time to question why?
The DoH, NHS England Patients and Information Directorate, HSCIC, and indeed many data recipients, all appear to have normalised an approach that for many is still a shock. The state centralised and passed on our medical records to others without our knowledge or permission. For years. With financial exchange.
Amazingly, it continues to be released in this way today, still without our consent or fair processing or publicised way to opt out.
“To earn the public’s trust in future we must be able to show that our controls are meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock.” said Sir Nick Partridge in his summary review.
Now you ask us to trust in care.data that the GP data, a degree more personal, will be used properly.
Yet you ask us to do this without significant changes in legislation to safeguard tightly defined purposes who can access it and why, how we control what future changes may be made without our knowledge and without a legally guaranteed opt out.
There is no information about what social care dataset is to be included in future, so how can we know what care.data scope even is yet?
Transparency cannot be a convenient watch word which applies with caveats. Quid pro quo, you want our data under an assumed consent process, then guarantee a genuinely informed public.
You can’t tell patients one approach now, then plan to change what will be said after the pilot is complete, knowingly planning a wider scope to include musculoskeletal or social care data and more. Or knowing you plan to broaden users of data [like research and health intelligence currently under discussion at IAG ] but only communicate a smaller version in the pilot. That is like cheating on a diet. You can’t say and do one thing in public, then have your cake and eat it later when no one is looking. It still counts.
In these processes, policies and approach, I don’t feel my trust can be won back with lack of openness and transparency. I don’t yet see a system which is, ‘meticulous, fool-proof or solid as a rock’.
‘Pathfinder’ pilots
Most recently you have announced that four areas of CCGs will pilotthe ‘pathfinder’ stage in the rollout of phase one. But where and when remains a mystery. Pathfinder communications methods may vary from place to place and trial what works and what fails. One commendable method will be a written letter.
However even given that individual notice intent, we cannot ignore that many remaining questions will be hard to address in a leaflet or letter. They certainly won’t fit into an SMS text.
Why pilot communications at all which will leave the same open questions unanswered you already know, but have not answered?
For example, let’s get a few of the missing processes clarified up front:
How will you communicate with Gillick competent children, whose records may contain information about which their parents are not aware?
How will you manage this for elderly or vulnerable patients in care homes and with diminished awareness or responsibility?
What of the vulnerable at risk of domestic abuse and coercion?
When things change in scope or use, how will we be given the choice to change our opt out decision?
I ask you not to ignore the processes which remain open. They need addressed BEFORE the pilot, unless you want people to opt out on the basis of their uncertainty and confusion.
What you do now, will set the model expectations for future communications. Patient online. Personalised medicine. If NHS health and social care is to become all about the individual, will you address all individuals equally or is reaching some less important than others?
Many of them remain unaddressed. You could start there. But in addition it must be clear before getting into communications tools, what is it that the pathfinders are actually piloting?
You can’t pilot communications without clearly defined contents to talk about.
Questions of substance need answers, the ten below to start with.
What determines that patients understand the programme and are genuinely informed, and how will it be measured?
Is it assumed that pilots will proceed to extraction? Or will the fair processing efforts be evaluated first and the effort vs cost be taken into account whether it is worth proceeding at all?
Let’s see this as an opportunity to get care.data right, for us, the patients. After all, you and the rest of the NHS England Board were keen to tell us at the NHS AGM on September 18th, how valuable citizen engagement is, and to affirm that the NHS belongs to us all.
How valued is our engagement in reality, if it is ignored? How will involvement continue to be promoted in NHS Citizen and other platforms, if it is seen to be ineffective? How might this negatively affect future programmes and our willingness to get involved in clinical research if we don’t trust this basic programme today?
This is too important to get wrong. It confuses people and causes concern. It put trust and confidence in jeopardy. Not just for now, but for other future projects. care.data risks polluting across data borders, even to beyond health:
“The care.data story is a warning for us all. It is far better if the industry can be early on writing standards and protocols to protect privacy now rather than later on down the track,” he said. [David Willets, on 5G]
So please, don’t keep the feedback and this information to internal departments.
We are told it is vital to the future of our NHS. It’s our personal information. And both belong to us.
During one Health Select Committee hearing, Mr. Kelsey claimed: “If 90 per cent opt out [of care.data], we won’t have an NHS.”
ICO has ruled that an opt in model by default at practice level with due procedures for patient notification will satisfy both legal requirements and protect GPs in their role as custodians of confidentiality and data controllers. Patient Concern has called for GPs to follow that local choice opt in model.
I want to understand why he feels what the risk is, to the NHS and examine its evidence base. It’s our NHS and if it is going to fail without care.data and the Board let it come to this, then we must ask why. And we can together do something to fix it. There was a list of pre-conditions he stated at those meetings would be needed before any launch, which the public is yet to see met. Answering this question should be part of that.
It can’t afford to fail, but how do we measure at what cost?
I was one of many, including much more importantly the GPES Advisory Group, who flagged the shortcomings of the patient leaflet in October 2013, which failed to be a worthwhile communications process in January. I flagged it with comms teams, my MP, the DoH.
[Sept 2013 GPES Advisory] “The Group also had major concerns about the process for making most patients aware of the contents of the leaflets before data extraction for care.data commenced”.
No one listened. No action was taken. It went ahead as planned. It cost public money, and more importantly, public trust.
In the words of Lord Darzi,
“With more adroit handling, this is a row that might have been avoided.”
Now there is still a chance to listen and to act. This programme can’t afford to pilot another mistake. I’m sure you know this, but it would appear that with the CCG announcement, the intent is to proceed to pilot soon. Ready or not.
If the programme is so vital to the NHS future, then let’s stop and get it right. If it’s not going to get the participation levels needed, then is it worth the cost? What are the risks and benefits of pressing ahead or at what point do we call a halt? Would it be wise to focus first on improving the quality and correct procedures around the data you already have – before increasing the volume of data you think you need? Where is the added intelligence, in adding just more information?
Is there any due diligence, a cost benefit analysis for care.data?
Suggestions
Scrap the ‘soon’ timetable. But tell us how long you need.
The complete raw feedback from all these care.data events should be made public, to ensure all the questions and concerns are debated andanswers found BEFORE any pilot.
The care.data programme board minutes papers and all the planning and due diligence should be published and open to scrutiny, as any other project spending public funds should be.
A public plan of how the pathfinders fit into the big picture and timeline of future changes and content would remove the lingering uncertainty of the public and GPs: what is going on and when will I be affected?
The NHS 5 year forward view was quite clear; our purse strings have been pulled tight. The NHS belongs to all of us. And so we should say, care.data can’t proceed at any and at all costs. It needs to be ‘meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock’.
We’ve been patient patients. We should now expect the respect and response, that deserves.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely.
Addendum: Sample of ten significant questions still outstanding
1. Scope: What is care.data?Scope content is shifting. and requests for scope purposes are changing already, from commissioning only to now include research and health intelligence. How will we patients know what we sign up to today, stays the purposes to which data may be used tomorrow?
2. Scope changes fair processing: We cannot sign up to one thing today, and find it has become something else entirely tomorrow without our knowledge. How will we be notified of any changes in what is to be extracted or change in how what has been extracted is to be used in future – a change notification plan?
3. Purposes clarity: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what? a: Clinical care vs secondary uses:
Given the widespread confusion – demonstrated on radio and in press after the pathfinders’ announcement – between care.data which is for ‘secondary use’ only, i.e. purposes other than the direct care of the patient – and the Summary Care Record (SCR) for direct care in medical settings, how will uses be made very clear to patients and how it will affect our existing consent settings?
3. Purposes definition: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what? b) Commercial use It is claimed the Care Act will rule out “solely commercial”purposes, but how when what remains is a broad definition open to interpretation? Will “the promotion of health” still permit uses such as marketing? Will HSCIC give its own interpretation, it is after all, the fact it operates within the law which prescribes what it should promote and permit.
3. Purposes exclusion: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what? c)Commercial re-use by third parties: When will the new contracts and agreements be in place? Drafts on the HSCIC website still appear to permit commercial re-use and make no mention of changes or revoking licenses for intermediaries.
4a. Opt out: It is said that patients who opt out will have this choice respected by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (i.e. no data will be extracted from their GP record) according to the Secretary of State for Health [col 147] – but when will the opt out – currently no more than a spoken promise – be put on a statutory basis? There seem to be no plans whatsoever for this.
Further wider consents: how patients will know what they have opted into or out from is currently almost impossible. We have the Summary Care Record, Proactive care in some local areas, different clinical GP systems, the Electronic Prescription Service and soon to be Patient Online, all using different opt in methods of asking and maintaining data and consent, means patients are unsurprisingly confused.
4b. Opt out: At what point do you determine that levels of participation are worth the investment and of value? If parts of the population are not represented, how will it be taken into account and remain valuable to have some data? What will be statistically significant?
5. Legislation around security: The Care Act 2014 is supposed to bring in new legislation for our data protection. But there are no changes to date as far as I can see – what happened to the much discussed in Parliament, one strike and out. Is any change still planned? If so, how has this been finalised and with what wording, will it be open to Parliamentary scrutiny? The Government claim to have added legal protection is meaningless until the new Care Act Regulations are put in front of Parliament and agreed.
6. What of the Governance changes discussed?
There was some additional governance and oversight promised, but to date no public communication of changes to the data management groups through the HRA CAG or DAAG and no sight of the patient involvement promised.
The Data Guardian role remains without the legal weight that the importance of its position should command. It has been said this will be granted ‘at the earliest opportunity.’ Many seem to have come and gone.
7. Data security: The planned secure data facility (‘safe setting’) at HSCIC to hold linked GP and hospital data is not yet built for expanded volume of data and users expected according to Ciaran Devane at the 6th September event. When will it be ready for the scale of care.data?
Systems and processes on this scale need security designed, that scales up to match in size with the data and its use.
Will you proceed with a pilot which uses a different facility and procedures from the future plan? Or worse still, with extracting data into a setting you know is less secure than it should be?
8. Future content sharing: Where will NHS patients’ individual-level data go in the longer term? The current documentation says ‘in wave 1’ or phase one, which would indicate a future change is left open, and indicated identifiable ‘red’ data is to be shared in future? “care.data will provide the longer term visions as well as […] the replacement for SUS.”
9. Current communications:
How will GPs and patients in ‘pathfinder’ practices be contacted?
Will every patient be written to directly with a consent form?
What will patients who opted out earlier this year be told if things have changed since then?
How will NHS England contact those who have retired or moved abroad recently or temporarily, still with active GP records?
How will foreign pupils’ parents be informed abroad and rights respected?
How does opt out work for sealed envelopes?
All the minorities with language needs or accessibility needs – how will you cater for foreign language, dialect or disability?
The homeless, the nomadic, children-in-care
How can we separate these uses clearly from clinical care in the public’s mind to achieve a genuinely informed opinion?
How will genuine mistakes in records be deleted – wrong data on wrong record, especially if we only get Patient Online access second and then spot mistakes?
How will the communications cater for both GP records and HES plus other data collection and sharing?
If the plan is to have opt out effective for all secondary uses, communications must cater for new babies to give parents an informed choice from Day One. How and when will this begin?
No wonder you wanted first no opt out, then an assumed consent via opt out junk mail leaflet. This is hard stuff to do well. Harder still, how will you measure effectiveness of what you may have missed?
10. Pathfinder fixes: Since NHS England doesn’t know what will be effective communications tools, what principles will be followed to correct any failures in communications for any particular trial run and how will that be measured?
How will patients be asked if they heard about it and how will any survey, or follow up ensure the right segmentation does not miss measuring the hard to reach groups – precisely those who may have been missed? i.e. If you only inform 10% of the population, then ask that same 10% if they heard of care.data, you would expect a close to 100% yes. That’s not reflective that the whole population was well informed about the programme.
If it is shown to have been ineffective, at what point do you say Fair Processing failed and you cannot legally proceed to extraction?
> This list doesn’t yet touch on the hundreds of questions generated from public events, on post-its and minutes. But it would be a start.
Theories on Thursday, furore on Friday. By Saturday the social media had hit the fan.
What we must remember whilst caught up in the recent Human Rights fuss, is that this is discussing a future theory. In practice, we are at risk of missing three* current and upcoming human rights threats, which are very real.
Whilst future policy change may already be doing harm to the spirit of the human rights law and those ideals today, current policies are having effect today in practice.
The Deregulation Bill, and other current policies and projects.
Regular readers will know, I have followed closely the care.data plans [see past posts] to extract our confidential GP medical records and centrally store, sell and share the information.
I hadn’t realised until recently why I care so strongly about doing this the right way. It simply felt wrong that the original plan was not to inform patients at all, and not ask for consent to remove the foundation stone of our confidentiality. The delayed plan, had a terrible junk-mail leaflet drop.
The current extraction plan is pending [roadmap end of page], but details unknown.
I have concerns about how it will harm the trust in the patient-GP relationship, potentially discriminate and segment certain groups and I’m still unhappy how open the records will be for use by third parties, not for clinical care. There needs work done to make it done well, and to be transparent and trustworthy for patients.
But I’ve realised now, it feels wrong, simply because it impinges on one of our basic human rights. Our right to privacy.
This post is not about care.data per se, but the recent Bill of Rights debate made me take a closer look at the bigger picture.
There are many discussing this, far better informed on human rights than me. But perhaps it’s time the ordinary public pay more attention to our rights, and where they fit into our lives in the UK. Rights which are easily eroded if we don’t pay attention.
I’ve had a look at the current Bill proposal [my notes & comment at the end], but at least for now, I’m more concerned about the actual plans already underway, which will in practice, affect the application of our human rights today, and we may not know it.
There are at least three real changes in legislation right now which I believe should command our attention.
The Government intends this economic growth duty to apply to the EHRC. We believe that applying this growth duty to the EHRC poses a significant risk to the EHRC’s independence, and therefore to its compliance with the Paris Principles and the Equal Treatment Directives as implemented by the Equality Act 2010. The Government is therefore risking the possibility of the EHRC’s accredited “A” status being downgraded and of putting the UK in breach of its obligations under EU equality law. Unless the continuing discussions between the Government and the Commission satisfy the Commission that the growth duty will not in any way impact upon its independence, we recommend that this duty not be applied to the EHRC.
Sections of the Deregulation Act currently passing through Parliament suggest the removal of any regulation that conflicts with the interests of a profit-maker. There are other domestic and regulatory bodies for which we should carefully consider this implication, not least from my perspective, in the NHS.
The Deregulation Bill creates a conflict when a law must consider commercial gain above human rights.
Further;
“The Bill would remove the power conferred on employment tribunals by the Equality Act to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases.”
The EHRC regards the power [conferred on employment tribunals] as useful, both for the employer to whom the recommendation is made and to the Commission itself for following up tribunal decisions, and it does not consider that sufficient evidence has been gathered to make out the case for abolition. We therefore recommend that the power of employment tribunals to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases should be retained.”
The Deregulation Bill also poses some concern for those interested in the requisition process for information, and press representation groups spoke out, worried it offers a back-door for seizing journalists’ material.
Seen all together, aspects of the Bill which is a mish-mash of all sorts of subjects, which was derided in some reports as being about knitting yarn, means it may well be a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to human rights.
Second and Third, the recent changes in legislation & access
Other real threats to our universal human rights in the UK, I consider as points two and three, are already having an effect.
Recent legal changes to both a) the legal aid and b) the judicial review processes mean it is harder for many people to use the available processes due to cost.
This results in inequality to use rights, which should be human rights for all by creating:
1. restrictions of individual access (who can get a fair trial, the ability to appeal)
and
2. reducing the universality of application to human rights law (limiting the circumstances and reasons ‘the how and when’ under which rights may be applied)
These are the changes in progress right now. So what of the actual projects underway or recently effected?
Current threats in practice to our UK Human Rights
Mr. Grayling said this week that any future policy change will continue to ensure to promote the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society. Many disagree.
The whole debate of this future policy change may already be doing real harm to the spirit of the law and those ideals today.
In my opinion, current actions are having real effect today in practice which risk undermining rather than strengthening our position towards universal human rights.
Current government policies and projects sign-post current thinking on the value of universal human rights and future direction.
Consider three things:
1. the recent changes which undermine access to use our rights, [access and universal applicability for all]
2. what value rights are given within current policies and practices,
3. the direction of travel in recent legislation, such as in surveillance, affecting universal rights for all.
It should come as no surprise then to hear of a more wholesale move towards the removal of rights in the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act, and more. Steps have been taken on this path for some time.
A current sample of some areas with flaws in their approach to human rights include from my lay perspective:
The care.data programme from NHS England to use our confidential patient records not for care, but for secondary purposes including sale, again this idea, of promoting economic growth. I question what value, if any, it places on our right to privacy, if all our GP records are to be extracted without active consent.
I believe policies and practice on treatment of the mentally ill in custody and those in prison can fall very short of respecting human rights.
changes in policies around welfare and immigration, as well as those I included in the legal system, it is widely acknowledged, means in practice, support is less inclusive and harder to access.
If we in the ordinary public, in response to the proposals this week, are now concerned about about the theoretical threats to human rights by a potential future government, and care about getting it right, I’d suggest we:
don’t wait to worry about what might be in June next year. Encourage those who can, such as our MPs, to look at these real and practical human rights’ threats today. Support MPs & others who are.
Start the list, with the Deregulation Bill. (Unless NHS England Patient & Information Directorate decide to begin care.data extractions before October 21st.) Watch this space.
************************
*there is clearly more of significance in this area, with which those better informed and active than me would say is missing, but with which I’ve not taken as close an interest. The Deregulation Bill will potentially affect NHS bodies, and I’ve looked at it before on care.data.
Notes on the proposals, and my references below:
************************
Reference sites:
The Deregulation Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 23 January 2014. It received its Second Reading in the Commons on 4 February 2014, completed its Committee Stage on 25 March and began its Report Stage on 14 May. The Bill has been carried over to the next Session of Parliament. The Bill was preceded by a draft Deregulation Bill which was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the ad hoc Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill.
************************
For your reference and to their credit, I’ve found the following three websites useful and kept up to date with care.data information:
medConfidential – campaign for confidentiality and consent in health and social care – seeking to ensure that every flow of data into, across and out of the NHS and care system is consensual, safe and transparent
For reference – background Bil of Rights / scrapping the HRA
The theory
The outline future proposal this week suggested, “A majority Conservative Government will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act, and will end the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to order changes to British laws.” [Jack of Kent, October 2nd]
Some of these plans were discussed here> on the Daily Politics. From 32.30 minutes in.
Myths abound how human rights are applied inappropriately to whom, and how they lack common sense.
In contrast, real examples have been presented of when the Human Rights Act and ECHR have been used to enhance and protect UK citizens, not least in the Mirror.
Looking to the future, individuals have further pointed out the fundamental flaw if limits of application were to be brought in which would for example, not use the law for ‘trivial cases’.
Tim Hancock, campaigns director of Amnesty UK, said in the International Business Times of this week’s announcement: “This is electioneering on the backs of Europe’s most vulnerable.
“Under these plans human rights would be reserved for only those people the Government decides should get them.”
Whilst we may each have our own political opinions, it is valuable to stay outside them and see changes objectively.
We must also see past the UKIP defection, knee-jerk reaction which conflates everything ‘Europe’, into something from which which the UK could ‘opt out’. As long as Britain remains a signatory to the ECHR, UK citizens could still directly petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg to hear their case. In fact, could be more likely to, rather than go through the British courts first. These proposals conflate the 1951 Convention on Human Rights, the UK 1998 Human Rights Act and our rights under current European law, and more.
If next May, a Conservative majority were to be elected, this proposal might form a basis of proposed legislative changes.
It is highly unlikely to be as is, or without debate. It is a partisan approach which ignores the fact that cross parliamentary support would likely be needed, as was the case when Parliament voted in favour of the introduction of the UK Human Rights Act in 1998.
But that is an if, and thus far, actually moving towards this legislative change is theoretical.
[Note update Sept 19th: after the NHS England AGM in the evening of Sept 18th – after this care.data engagement post published 18hrs earlier – I managed to ask Mr.Kelsey, National Director for Patients and Information, in person what was happening with all the engagement feedback and asked why it had not been made publicly available.
He said that the events’ feedback will be published before the pathfinder rollout begins, so that all questions and concerns can be responded to and that they will be taken into account before the pathfinders launch.
When might that be, I asked? ‘Soon’.
Good news? I look forward to seeing that happen. My open questions on commercial uses and more, and those of many others I have heard, have been captured in previous posts, in particular the most recent at the end of this post. – end of update.]
Medical data has huge power to do good, but it presents risks too. When leaked, it cannot be unleaked. When lost, public trust cannot be easily regained. That’s what broken-hearted Ben Goldacre wrote about care.data on February 28th of this year, ten days after the the pause was announced on February 18th [The Guardian] .
Fears and opinions, facts and analysis, with lots and lots of open questions. That’s what I’ve written up in the following posts related to care.data since then, including my own point-of-view and feedback from other citizens, events and discussions. All my care.data posts are listed here below, in one post, to give an overview of the whole story, and any progress in the six months ‘listening’ and ‘engagement’.
So what of that engagement? If there really have been all these events and listening, why has there been not one jot of public feedback published? This is from September 2014, I find it terrifyingly empty of anything but discussing change in communications of the status quo programme.
I was at that workshop, hosted by Mencap on communicating
with vulnerable and excluded groups the article mentions. It was carefully managed, with little open room discussion to share opinions cross groups (as the Senior Policy Adviser at Signature pointed out.) Whilst we got the NHS England compilation of the group feedback afterwards, it was not published. Maybe I should do that and ask how each concern will be addressed? I didn’t want to stand on the NHS England national comms. toes, assuming it would be, but you know, what? If the raw feedback says from all these meetings, these are our concerns and we want these changes, and none are forthcoming, then the public should justifiably question the whole engagement process.
It’s public money, and the public’s data. How both are used and why, is not to be hidden away in some civil service spreadsheet. Publish the business case. Publish the concerns. Publish how they are to be addressed.
On the day of NHS Citizen, the new flagship of public involvement, people like me who attended the NHS England Open Day on June 17th, or care.data listening events, may be understandably frustrated that there is no publicly available feedback or plan of any next steps.
Instead, the article above, this reported speech by Mr.Kelsey and its arguments, make me think engagement is going nowhere. No concerns are addressed. PR is repeated. More facts and figures which are a conflation of data use for clinical treatment and all sorts of other uses, are presented as an argument for gathering more data.
Citizens do not need told of the benefits. We need concrete steps taken in policy, process and practice, to demonstrate why we can now trust the new system.
Only then is it worthwhile to come back to communications.
How valued is patient engagement in reality, if it is ignored?
How will involvement continue to be promoted in NHS Citizen and other platforms, if it is seen to be ineffective?
How might this affect future programmes and our willingness to get involved in clinical research?
I sincerely hope to see the raw feedback published very soon, which NHS England has gathered in their listening events. How that will be incorporated into any programme changes, as well as communications, will go a long way to assuring the quantity in numbers and quality of cross-population participation.
What next for care.data? I’ll keep asking the questions and hope we hear some answers from the NHS England Patients and Information Directorate. Otherwise, what was the [&88!@xY!] point of a six month pause and all these efforts and listening?
Publish the business case. Publish the concerns. Publish how they are to be addressed.
What is there to hide?
After this six-month engagement, will there be a happy ending? I feel patients are about to be left jilted at the eleventh hour.
******
You’ll find my more recent posts [last] have more depth and linked document articles if you are looking for more detailed information.
medConfidential – campaign for confidentiality and consent in health and social care – seeking to ensure that every flow of data into, across and out of the NHS and care system is consensual, safe and transparent
The investment to date may seem vast if, like me, you are unfamiliar with the amounts of money that are spent in research [in 2011 an £800M announcement, last summer £90M in Oxford as just two examples], and Friday revealed yet more money, a new £300M research package. It is complex how it all adds up, and from mixed sourcing. But the stated aim of the investment is relatively simple: the whole genomes of 75,000 people [40K patients and 35K healthy relatives] are to be mapped by 2017.
Where the boundary lies between participation for clinical care and for research is less clear in the media presentation. If indeed participants’ results will be fed back into their NHS care pathway, then both aims seem to be the intent of the current wave of participants.
“The ultimate aim is to make genomic testing a routine part of clinical practice – but only if patients and clinicians want it.” [Genomics England, how we work]
The infrastructure of equipment is enormous to have these sequences running 24/7 as was indicated in media TV coverage. I’m no maths whizz, but it appears to me they’re building Titantic at Genomics England and the numbers of actual people planned to take part (75K) would fit on the lifeboats. So with what, from whom, are they expecting to fill the sequencing labs after 2017? At Genomics England events it has been stated that the infrastructure will then be embedded in the NHS. How is unclear, if commercial funding has been used to establish it. But at its most basic, there will be no point building the infrastructure and finding no volunteers want to take part. You don’t build the ship and sail without passengers. What happens, if the English don’t volunteer in the desired numbers?
What research has been done to demonstrate the need or want for this new WGS project going forwards at scale, compared with a) present direct care or b) existing research facilities?
I cannot help but think of the line in the film, Field of Dreams. If you build it they will come. So who will come to be tested? Who will come to exploit the research uses for public good? Who will come in vast numbers in our aging population to exploit the resulting knowledge for their personal benefit vs companies who seek commercial profit? How will the commercial and charity investors, make it worth their while? Is the cost/benefit to society worth it?
All the various investors in addition to the taxpayer; Wellcome Trust, the MRC, Illumina, and others, will want to guarantee they are not left with an empty shell. There is huge existing and promised investment. Wellcome for example, has already “invested more than £1 billion in genomic research and has agreed to spend £27 million on a world class sequencing hub at its Genome Campus near Cambridge. This will house Genomics England’s operations alongside those of the internationally respected Sanger Institute.”
Whilst the commercial exploitation by third parties is explicit, there may also be another possibility to consider: would the Government want:
a) some cost participation by the participants? and
b) will want to sell the incidental findings’ results to the participants?
“Regier et al. 345 have estimated the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a diagnostic test to find the genetic cause of idiopathic developmental disability from families with an affected child. They used a discrete choice experiment to obtain WTP values and found that these families were willing to pay CDN$1118 (95% CI CDN$498-1788) for the expected benefit of twice as many diagnoses using aCGH and a reduction in waiting time of 1 week when compared to conventional cytogenetic analysis.”
“Moreover, it is advisable to minimise incidental findings where possible; health care professionals should not have an obligation to feedback findings that do not relate to the clinical question, except in cases where they are unavoidably discovered and have high predictive value. It follows that the NHS does not have an obligation to provide patients with their raw genome sequence data for further analysis outside of the NHS. We make no judgement here about whether the individual should be able to purchase and analyse their genome sequence independently; however, if this course of action is pursued, the NHS should provide follow-up advice and care only when additional findings are considered to be of significant clinical relevance in that individual…” [13]
How much is that cost, per person to be mapped? What is the expected return on the investment?
What are the questions which are not being asked of this huge state investment, particularly at a time when we are told he NHS is in such financial dire straits?
Are we measuring the costs and benefits?
Patient and medical staff support is fundamental to the programme, not an optional extra. It should not be forgotten that the NHS is a National Service owned by all of us. We should know how it runs. We should know what is spends. Ultimately, it is we who pay for it.
So let’s see on paper, what are the actual costs vs benefits? Where is the overall and long term cost benefit business case covering the multi-year investment, both of tangible and intangible benefits? In my personal research, I’m yet to find one. There is however, some discussion in this document:
“The problem for NGS is that very little ‘real’ information is available on the actual costs for NGS from the NHS perspective and the NHS Department of Health Reference Costs Database and PSSRU, where standard NHS costings are listed, are generally not helpful.” [13 – PHG, 2011]
Where are the questions being asked if this is really what we should be doing for the public good and for the future of the NHS?
Research under good ethics and bona fide transparent purposes is a public asset. This rollout, has potential to become a liability.
To me, yet again it seems, politics has the potential to wreck serious research aims and the public good.
Perhaps more importantly, the unrestrained media hype carries the very real risk of creating unfounded hope for an immediate diagnosis or treatment, for vulnerable individuals and families who in reality will see no personal benefit. This is not to undermine what may be possible in future. It is simply a plea to rein in hype to reality.
Politicians and civil servants in NHS England appear to use both research and the notion of the broad ‘public good’, broadly in speeches to appear to be doing ‘the right thing to do’, but without measurable substance. Without a clear cost-benefit analysis, I admit, I am skeptical. I would like to see more information in the public domain.
I question whether the propositions of the initiative have been grasped by Parliament and society as a whole, although I understand this is not a ‘new’ subject as such. This execution however, does appear at least, massive in its practical implications, not least for GPs if it is to become so mainstream, as quickly as plans predict. It raises a huge number of ethical questions. Not least of which will be around incidental findings, as the Radio 4 interview raised.
The first I have is consideration of pre-natal testing plans:
“Aside from WGS of individuals, other applications using NGS could potentially be more successful in the DTC market. For example, the use of NGS for non-invasive prenatal testing would doubtless be very popular if it became available DTC prior to being offered by the NHS, particularly for relatively common conditions such as Down syndrome…” [
and then the whole question of consent, particularly from children:
“…it may be almost impossible to mitigate the risk that individuals may have their genome sequenced without their consent. Some genome scan companies (e.g. 23andMe) have argued that the risks of covert testing are reduced by their sample collection method, which requires 2ml of saliva; in addition, individuals are asked to sign to confirm that the sample belongs to them (or that they have gained consent from the individual to whom it belongs). However, neither of these methods will have any effect on the possibility of sequencing DNA from children, which is a particularly contentious issue within DTC genomics.” [13]
“two issues have emerged as being particularly pressing: first is the paradox that individuals cannot be asked to consent to the discovery of risks the importance of which is impossible to assess. Thus from a legal perspective, there is no ‘meeting of minds’ and contractually the contract between researcher and participant might be void. It is also unclear whether informed consent is sufficient to deal with the feedback of incidental findings which are not pertinent to the initial research or clinical question but that may have either clinical or personal significance…” [PHG page 94]
“What we don’t want to say is those 10 years you have between 70 and 80, although clearly you are not going to be working, are not going to be valuable to somebody.
Clearly they are. You might be doing all sorts of very useful things for your family or local society. That’s what we are worried about and that’s the problem with the Department of Health’s calculation.
There are lots of people who adopt the fair-innings approach; ‘you’ve had 70 years of life you’ve got to accept that society is going to bias its investments in younger people.”
[14 – see Channel 4] Yet our population is ageing and we need to find a balance of where roles, rules and expectations meet. And question, how do we measure human value, should we, and on what basis are we making cost-based care decisions?
Clinical environment changes make engagement and understanding harder to achieve
All this, is sitting on shifting, fundamental questions on how decision making and accountability will be set, in a world of ever fragmenting NHS structure:
“More problematic will be the use of specific genomic technologies such as NGS in patient pathways for inherited disorders that are delivered outside the clinical genetics services (such as services for FH, haemophilia and sickle cell disease) and NGS that is used for non-inherited disease conditions. These will be commissioned by GP consortia within established care pathways. Such commissioning of companion diagnostics would, in theory be evaluated first by NICE. However, it is not clear what capacity NICE will have across a broad range of uses. In practice it seems likely that GP consortia may make a variety of different decisions influenced by local experts and pressure, funding and different priorities. Particular questions for NGS will include: How will commissioners be provided with the necessary evidence for decision-making and can this be developed and coordinated at a national level? How will commissioners prioritise particularly when it may be necessary to invest early in order to achieve savings later? What (if any) influence may commissioners be able to exert over the configuration of test providers (for example the rationalisation of laboratories or the use of private testing companies)? [13]
Today (August 8th) the public row between Roche and the Government through NICE became apparant on cancer treatment. And again I found myself asking, what are we not funding, whilst we spend on genomics? If you did not you hear Sir Andrew Dillon & the discussion, you can listen again on BBC Radio 2 iPlayer here. [It’s in the middle of the programme, and begins at 01:09.06.]
Questions, in search of an answer
Where has the population indicated that this is the direction of travel we wish our National Health Service to take? What preparation has been made for the significant changes in society it will bring? When was Parliament asked before this next step in policy and huge public spend were signed off and where is the periodic check against progress and public sign off, of the next step? Who is preparing the people and processes for this explosive change, announced with sparklers, at arms length and a long taper? Are the challenges being shared honestly between policy, politicians and scientists, being shared with patients and public: as discussed at the stakeholder meeting at St.Barts London, 3rd October 2013 (a key panel presentation: 45 minute video with slides)? When will that be shared with the public and NHS staff in full? Why does NHS England feel this is so fundamental to the future of the NHS? Must we abandon a scuppered and sinking NHS for personalised medicine on personal budgets and expectations of increased use of private health insurance?
Is genomics really the lifeboat to which the NHS is inextricably bound?
Not everyone may have understood it that way, but if not, I’d like to know what was meant.
I would like to understand what is meant when Genomics England spokespeople say the future holds:
“Increasingly to select most appropriate treatment strategy. In the longer term, potential shift to prevention based on risk-based information.”
or
“Review the role of sequencing in antenatal and adult screening.”
I would welcome the opportunity to fully understand what was suggested at that Board meeting as a result of our shared risk pool, and readers should view it and make up their own mind. Even better, a frank public and/or press board meeting with Q&A could be rewarding.
The ethical questions that are thrown up by this seem yet to have little public media attention.
Not least, incidental findings: if by sequencing someone’s DNA, you establish there is something for their health that they ought to be doing soon, will you go to that patient and say look, you should be doing this…. these are incidental findings, and may be quite unexpected and separate from the original illness under investigation in say, a family member, and may also only suggest risk indicators, not clear facts.
If this is expected to be mainstream by 2018, what training plans are in place as indicated needed as a “requirement for professionals across the NHS to be trained in genetics and its implications”? [presentation by Mark Bale, DoH, July 2014]
When will we get answers to these questions, and more?
Because there is so much people like me don’t know, but should, if this is our future NHS under such fundamental change as is hyped.
Because even the most esteemed in our land can get things wrong. One of them at the St.Bart’s events quotes on of my favourite myths attributed wrongly to Goethe. It cannot be attributed to him, that he said, ” “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.” You see, we just hear something which sounds plausible, from someone who seems to know what they are talking about. It isn’t always right.
Because patients of rare disease in search of clinical care answers should be entitled to have expectations set appropriately, and participants in research know to what they, and possibly family members indirectly, are committed.
Because if the NHS belongs to all of us, we should be able to ask questions and expect answers about its planning, how we choose to spend its budget and how it will look in future.
These are all questions we should be asking as society
Fundamentally, in what kind of society will my children grow up?
With the questions of pre-natal intervention, how will we shape our attitudes towards our disabled and those who are sick, or vulnerable or elderly? Are we moving towards the research vision Mr.Hunt, Cameron and Freeman appear to share, only for good, or are we indeed to look further head to a Gattacan vision of perfection?
How may this look in a society where ‘some cornflakes get to the top‘ and genetic advantage seen as a natural right over those without that ability? In a state where genetics could be considered as part of education planning? [16]
For those with lifelong conditions, how may genetic screening affect their life insurance when the Moratorium expires* in 2017 (*any shift in date TBC pending discussion) ? How will it affect their health care, if the NHS England Board sees a potential effect on equity of access? How will it affect those of us who choose not to have screening – will we be penalised for that?
And whilst risk factors may include genomic factors, lifestyle factors some argue are even more important, but these change over time. How would those, who may have had past genetic screening be affected in future requirements?
After the August 1st announcement, [11] The Wellcome Trust‘s reporting was much more balanced and sensible than the political championing had been. It grasps the challenges ahead:
“Genomics England has ambitious plans to sequence 100,000 genomes from 75,000 people, some of whom will also have cancer cells sequenced. The sheer scale of the plans is pretty daunting. The genetic information arising from this project will be immense and a huge challenge for computational analysis as well as clinical interpretation. It will also raise a number of issues regarding privacy of patient data. Ensuring that these genetic data can be used maximally for patient benefit whilst protecting the rights of the individual participant must be at the heart of this project.
At the beginning of the Human Genome Project, scientists and funders like the Wellcome Trust knew they were on a journey that would be fraught with difficulties and challenges, but the long-term vision was clear. And so it is with the plans for Genomics England, it will most certainly not be easy…”
Managing change
Reality is that yet again, Change Management and Communications have been relegated to the bottom of the boarding priorities list.
This is not only a research technology or health programme. Bigger than all of that is the change it may bring. Not only in NHS practice, should the everyday vision of black boxes in GP surgeries become reality, but for the whole of society. For the shape of society, in age and diversity. Indeed if we are to be world leaders, we have potential to start to sling the world on a dangerous orbit if the edges of scope are ill defined. Discussing only with interested parties, those who have specific personal or business interests in genomic research and data sharing, whilst at Board meetings not clearly discussing the potential effects of risk stratification and personalisation on a free at the point of delivery health service is in my opinion, not transparent, and requires more public discussion.
After all, there are patients who are desperate for answers, who are part of the NHS and need our fair treatment and equity of access for rare disease. There is the majority who may not have those needs but knows someone who does. And we all fund and support the structure and staff in our world class service, we know and love. We want this to work well.
Future research participation depends on current experience and expectations. It is the latter I fear are being currently mishandled in public and the media.
Less than a month ago, at the NHS England Board Meeting on July 3rd, Lord Adebowale very sensibly asked, “how do we lead people from where we are, and how we take the public with us? We need to be a world leader in engaging all the public”
Engagement is not rocket science. But don’t forget the ethics.
If this project is meant to be, according to MP George Freeman [George 2], akin to Kennedy launching the Space Race, then, by Fenyman [12], why can they not get their public involvement at big launches sorted out?
Is it because there are such large gaps and unknowns that questioning will not stand up to scrutiny? Is it because suggesting a programme will end the NHS as we know it, would be fatal for any politician or party who supports that programme in the coming year? Or do the leading organisations possibly paternalistically believe the public is too dim or uninterested or simply working to make ends meet to care [perhaps part of the 42% of the population who expected to struggle as a result of universal welfare changes, one in three main claimants (34 per cent) said in 2012 they ‘run out of money before the end of the week/month always or most of the time’] ? But why bother will the big press splash, if it should not make waves?
“Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects.
Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met.
If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources. For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations… [June 6th 1986. Six months after the disaster, the Report to the Presidential Commission (Appendix F)]
The key is not the landing, it’s understanding why we launched in the first place.
Space may not be the most significant final frontier out there in the coming months that we should be looking at up close. Both in health and science. Our focus in England must surely be to examine these plans with a microscope, and ask what frontiers have we reached in genomics, health data sharing and ethics in the NHS?
[10] November 2013 ISCG – political pressure on genomics schedule http://www.england.nhs.uk/iscg/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/01/ISCG-Paper-Ref-ISCG-009-001-ISCG-Meeting-Minutes-and-Actions-26-November-2013-v1.1.pdf
[16] Education committee, December 4th 2013 including Prof. Plomin From 11.09:30 education and social planning http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14379
*****
For avoidance of confusion [especially for foreign readership and considering one position is so new], there are two different Ministers mentioned here, both called George:
“The UK is set to become the world leader in ground-breaking genetic research into cancer and rare diseases, which will transform how diseases are diagnosed and treated, thanks to a package of investment worth more than £300 million.” [DH press release, August 1 2014. [2] ]
“…with their medical details “opened up” to private healthcare firms, says David Cameron.”
This was the next step in the programme, hailed as an historic moment, a giant leap forward for genomics.
The photo call for the symbolic signing included Jay Flatley President, Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of Illumina, Inc, Sir John Chisholm Executive Chair of Genomics England & Chair of Nesta, together with Dame Sally Davies Chief Medical Officer and Mr. George Freeman [George 2] MP for mid-Norfolk, and the newly appointed Life Sciences Minister.
Fewer than twelve months before an election the Government has decided to commit commercially to a US based company, in a programme which Mr.Cameron himself said, has had controversy. That c-word is one the Conservatives will want to avoid in the coming election campaign.
This Channel 4 [4] film from almost 2 years ago, (December 2012) raises many questions as valid today as then. At that time, in contrast with today’s approach, the programme suggests that consent for research and data use would be assumed for all.
The inestimable Jon Snow asked then, why is the Business Department announcing this [the launch of the pilot programme, when focused then first in rare cancers]? The public may understand that commercial pharma, charities and the State work hand-in-glove (as Mr.Cameron’s 2011 vision stated), but as Jon Snow asks, not yet understand how this commercial venture will benefit the NHS long term as well as individual patients and the public as a whole? Is it concrete on benefits to patients vs benefits to UK plc?
So what was the key press message which came over?
The coverage of the week since August 1st, expounded the belief that through Genomics England Ltd we will do away with chemotherapy in the future. I believe this should be the source of a raging debate, but it passed by with little more than a few waves.
The original review given last summer to Genomics England including listing the rare diseases which may affect the 6% of the population, suggests one consideration, targeting those with very high likelihood of familial links and therefore success.[6] or Patients selected with a high probability of a single gene disorder. There are obviously great challenges in turnaround time for the genetic processing to be useful in clinical decision making. Considering whether or not it is timely or accurate enough to be of clinical benefit in acute cancer care clinical decision making will be vital. It is also what is being promised to patients who sign up, a faster, more efficient, improved offering on what is available already in the NHS genetic services today.
The interested population and profession would do well to get an independent medical update on the status of this, to understand it better if this is now established and its reliability, so what participants sign up for, is what they get on the tin:
“Results are provided for patients in a timely fashion (e.g. within 8 weeks) and with sufficient clinical accuracy (not yet established for WGS) [whole genome sequencing].” [page 3 of 8]
And what was the press result and public reaction to the news?
As one example, look at lunchtime on Friday August 1st, Radio 2 callers to the Jeremy Vine show. They included two undergoing chemo who felt they had to call in, to tell others, chemo is not always as bad as it sounds and make sure you don’t give up on it, refuse treatment or wait for this new genetic solution.
The impression was given, there is a new wonder solution within grasp on the horizon. This seemed to me rather reckless and unfairly manipulative on the ill and vulnerable to give them a blanket hope, that their cancer treatment may become so much better, soon. These are real people’s lives, not guinea pigs with which one can feel free to trial hypothesis and hype. If anyone now refuses chemo as a result of the Friday fantasy projections, their health may have been directly impacted. I would like to have heard a DH or Genomics England press manager speaking, not allowing such public free rein, to ensure it was factually accurate. But I’m guessing that Genomics England as an ALB is not really ready for press yet [their public engagement and education programme isn’t ready yet they confirmed when asked in July in an FOI], and the DH perhaps at arms length, thinks, it’s not their responsibility and outside their remit. Stuck in the middle, we have the commissioning body, NHS England.
How might this involve all of us, our NHS and cross into care.data?
In most recent memory, NHS England tried and so far failed in February 2014, to engage the public and clinicians in the extraction of our GP stored health records, in the care.data initiative. Care.data languishes in some sort of unknown black hole at the moment, with little public engagement and pilots promised ‘for autumn’. Both programmes are run under the auspices of Mr. Kelsey at NHS England Patients and Information Department, and arms length from the Department of Health. Last summer, Tim Kelsey and Sir Bruce Keogh presented a paper to the Board on Genomics and its interaction with NHS patient records. [7]
Given that the Genomics paper indicated that care.data and NHS held patient records were of paramount importance to NHS England I would like to have seen more transparency over this, including informed public and parliamentary debate:
“Issues of data ownership and transparency are of paramount importance to NHS England as set out in the Mandate and given the hugely positive developments in Care.Data. Geraint Lewis is leading this work, and has begun work to consider how the sequencing data might be held, connected to patient records and subsequently be exploited. It will also look at the connections between this work and the establishment of care data in the NHS. The NHS England data and informatics team will retain oversight of the informatics and data work and discussions continue on how it can best inform and support the implementation of business plan of Genomics England Limited.”
There has been almost no public statement from NHS England on genomics and our data management in the same discussion, until now. George Freeman MP [2] said on BBC Radio 4 (Starting from 2:46.30 in interview with Sarah Montague:
“It’s absolutely not the care.data initiative discussed earlier in the year. This is 100K patients, all volunteering and all providing their consent. It’s completely anonymised data in the data set, the only person who would be able to come back to the patient and make a link with the genomics and the diagnosis, is their doctor. We’re creating a database so that NHS researchers and industry researchers, can look at the broad patterns. 90% of patients with that variation, get that disease, this drug works in 50% of patients…It’s completely anonymised, there is no basis on which you could make the link. The only person who can make the link is the NHS clinician.”
Whilst this is NOT the same initiative, it intends to use some of the same data for those people who actively consent to participate in the 100K Genome Project.
The data will be extracted from care.data [which ‘assumes consent’ or requires active opt OUT, depending how you view it] to include longitudinal, phenotype data across a person’s lifetime. I spoke to the Genomics England media team last autumn, 2013, which confirmed this intent at that time.
The trouble is for Mr. Freeman [2] and these statements, that the public knows ‘anonymous’ in care.data turned out to not be anonymous at all. ICO and HSCIC [8] are still working this out. [HSCIC has just published its first review of pseudonymisation review 9] It was discovered that far from being released only to clinicians and researchers, our hospital data has been shared with all sort of unexpected third parties, without consent. [see the Partridge Review]. This surprised and shocked many, to public outcry and the resultant loss of trust [15] in the programme has yet to be rebuilt. So some listeners may well and understandably have had concerns that their data may be used for purposes to which they have not agreed.
Some say that genetic data by its very nature, despite stripping data identifiers, cannot be non-identifying, or stay that way:[16]
“It only takes one male,” said Yaniv Erlich, a Whitehead fellow, who led the research team. “With one male, we can find even distant relatives.” [Jan 2013]
“If they choose to share that’s a very admirable thing because by sharing freely, progress for everyone is accelerated, and if someone is not comfortable we should respect that too and find ways for them to still participate in research,” he said.
What are the next steps – or should we expect, one giant leap?
As regards care.data from all, it is I believe reasonable, that we should we ask: how we should expect our care.data to be used, and trust for what restricted purposes it will be extracted and stored for the future? What mechanisms will separate consent for care.data commissioning from this kind of research? How will citizens trust this data sharing now as the Department for Patients and transformation care.data proposals seem still open ended in scope in particular for social care [17], and alongside other ever widening government data sharing? [18] How will the public know where the future boundaries of care.data scope creep lie?
If anything has been learned from care.data to date it must be this: We should continue to ask for more public involvement in policy and planning, not just the post-event PR if the state wishes to ensure success and prevent surprises. What happens next for this data programme, and for our national programme of genomics, 100K?
[10] November 2013 ISCG – political pressure on genomics schedule http://www.england.nhs.uk/iscg/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/01/ISCG-Paper-Ref-ISCG-009-001-ISCG-Meeting-Minutes-and-Actions-26-November-2013-v1.1.pdf
[16] The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass in the WSJ, Jan 2013: “”It only takes one male,” said Yaniv Erlich, a Whitehead fellow, who led the research team. “With one male, we can find even distant relatives.”
For avoidance of confusion [especially for foreign readership and considering one position is so new], there are two different Ministers mentioned here, both called George:
Five months after the most recent delay to the care.data launch, I’ve come to the conclusion that we must seek long-term excellence in its performance, not content ourselves with a second-rate dress rehearsal.
“Sharing our medical records, is like playing Chopin. Done well, it has the potential to demonstrate brilliance. It separates the good, the bad and the ugly, from the world-class players. But will we get it right, or will we look back at repeat dire performances and can say, we knew all the right notes, but got them all in the wrong order?”
The vast majority were from organisations which are data users, some names familiar from the care.data press coverage in spring, [Beacon Consulting, Harvey Walsh] plus many university and charity driven researchers.
Sir Kingsley Manning, Sir Nick Partridge and Andy Williams [The CEO since April 2014] all representing HSCIC, spoke about the outcomes of the PWC audit, which sampled 10% of the releases of identifiable or pseudonymous data sharing agreements for closer review, and what is termed ‘Back Office’ access (by the police, Home Office, court orders) in the eight years as the NHS IC prior to the HSCIC rebrand and changes on April 1st, 2013.
“The standard PwC methodology was adopted for sample testing data releases with the prevailing governance arrangements. Samples were selected for each of the functional areas under review. Of the total number of data releases identified (3,059); approximately a 10% sample was tested in total.” (Report, Data Release Review June 2014)
I believe it is of value to understand how we got here as well as the direction in which the HSCIC is moving. This is what the meeting sought to do, to first look back and then look forward. They are Data Controller and Processor of our health records and personal identifiable data. As care.data pathfinder pilots approach at a pace, set for ‘autumn’, the changes in the current processes and procedures for data handling will not only effect records which are already held, from our hospital care and other health settings‘, but they will have a direct effect on how our medical records extracted from GP practices will be treated, for care [dot] data in the future.
Data Management thus far has failed to meet the standards of world class delivery; in collection, governance and release
It made me think, that sharing our medical records, is like playing Chopin. Done well, it has potential for brilliance. It separates the good, the bad and the ugly, from the world-class players. Even more so, when played as part of suite, where standards are understood and interoperable . Data sharing demands technical precision, experience and discipline. Equally, gone wrong, we can look back at past performances and say, we had world class potential and knew all the right notes, but got them all in the wrong order. Where did we fail? Will we learn, or let it repeat?
The 2.5 hour event, focused more on the attendees’ main interest, how they will be affected by any changes in the release process. Some had last received data before the care.data debacle in February put a temporary halt on releases.
As a result of planned changes, will some current data customers find, that they have already received data for the last time, I wonder?
After the initial review of the critical findings in the Partridge report, the discussion centred on listening to suggestions what may be done in England to prevent future fails. But in fact, I think we should be going further. We should be looking at what we are doing in England to be the world-class player that the Prime Minister said he wants.[5]
We are focused on making the best of a bad job, when we could be looking at how to be brilliant.
To me, the meeting missed a fundamental point. Before they decide the finer points of release, they need to ensure there will be data to collect. There was not one mention of the public’s surprise that our data was collected and had been sold or shared with each of them until last spring. So now that the public in part knows about it, the recipients should also consider we are watching them closely.
Data users are being judged as one, by their group performance
What the data recipients may or may not be conscious of, is that they too each are helping to shape the orchestra and will determine the overall sound that is heard outside.
They may not realise that as data recipients, we citizens, the data providers, will see and hear their actions and respond to them all collectively, in terms of what impact it may have on our opt in/out decision.
I heard on Monday one or two shriller voices from global data intermediaries claiming that others had been receiving data whilst their own requests had been overlooked. As of last Friday, HSCIC said 627 requests were on standby, waiting for review and to know whether or not they would receive data. Currently HSCIC is getting 70 new requests a month. Bearing in mind the attendees were mostly data users, they can be forgiven that they were mostly concerned about data release and use, but they did in part also raise the importance of correct communication, governance and consent of extraction. They realise without future public trust, there is no future data store.
One consultancy however, seemed to want to blame all the other players for their own past mistakes, though there was no talk of any blame in any discussion otherwise. They asked, what about the approvals process for SUS (Secondary Uses Service data), how are those being audited and approved, is it like HES? How about HSCIC getting their act together on opt out, putting power back in the hands of patients, they asked. What about the National Cancer Registries, ONS (Office of National Statistics), all the data which is not HES, will there be one entrance point to access all these data stores for all requests? And as for insurance concerns by patients, the same said, people were foolish to be concerned. Why, “if they don’t get our health data then all the premiums will go up.”
My my, it did feel a little like a Diva having a tantrum at the rest of the performers for messing up her part. And she would darn well pull the rest of them into the pit with her if she was going to get cancelled. In true diva style, I’m sure that company didn’t even realise it.
But all those data recipients are in the same show now – if one of them screws up badly, the critics will slam them all. And with it, their providers of data, we patients, will not share our data. Consent and confidentiality are golden tickets and will not be given up lightly. If all the data-using players perform well, abide by the expected standards, and treat both critics, audience and each other with proper etiquette, then they will get their pay, and get to stay in the show. But it won’t be a one time deal. They will need to learn continuously, do whatever the show conductor asks, and listen and learn from the critics as they perform in future, not slacking off or getting complacent.
Whilst the meeting discussed past failings in the NHS IC, I hope the organisations will consider what has truly shocked the public is some of the uses to which data has been put. How the recipients used it. They need to examine their own practices as much as HSCICs.
The majority of the attendees were playing from the same score, asking future questions which I will address in detail in part two.
The vast majority asked, how will the data lab work? And other Research users asked many similar and related questions. [This from medConfidential [6] whilst on the similar environment for accredited safe havens, goes some way to explaining the principle of a health research remote data lab (HRRDL).]
Governance questions were raised. Penalties were an oft recurring theme and local patient representative group and charity representatives, asked how the new DAAG lay person appointments process would work and be transparent.
Other questions on past data use, were concerned with the volume of Back Office data uses. The volume of police tracing for example. How person tracing by the border agency, particularly with reference to HIV and migrant health, which may reveal data to border agencies which would not normally be shared by the patients’ doctors. “If people are going to have confidence in HSCIC, this was a matter of policy which needed looking at in detail. ” The HSCIC panel noted that they also understood there were serious concerns on the quantity of intra-government departments sharing, the HMRC, Home and Cabinet Offices getting mentions. “There was debate to be had”, he said.
They’re collectively recovering from unexpected and catastrophic criticism at the start of the year. It is still having a critical effect on many organisations because they don’t have access to the data exactly as they used to, with a backlog built up after a temporary stop on the flow which was restarted after a couple of months. HSCIC has reviewed themselves, in part, and any smart attendees on Monday will know how each of their organisations have fared. The audit has found some of their weaknesses and sought to address them. There is a huge number of changes, definitions and open considerations under discussion and not yet ready to introduce. They realise there is a great amount of work still to be done, to bring the theory into practice, test it out, edit and get to a point where they are truly ready for a new public performance.
But none of the truly dodgy sounding instruments have been kicked out yet. I would suggest there are simply organisations which are not themselves of the same standards of ethics and physical best practices which deserve to manage our data. They will bring down the whole, and need rejected – the commercial re-use licenses of commercial intermediaries. And the playing habits of the data intermediaries need some careful attention, drawing the line between their clinical support work and their purely commercial purposes. The pace may have slowed down, but data is still flowing out, and there was no recognition that this may be without data protection permission or best practice, if individuals aren’t aware of their data being used in this way. The panel conducted a well organised and orderly discussion, but there were by far more open questions, than answers ready to be given.
What we do now, sets the future stage of all data sharing, in the UK and beyond – to be brilliant, will take time to get right
How HSCIC puts into action and implements the safeguards, processes and their verbal plans to manage data in the short and medium term, will determine much for the future of data governance in England, and the wider world. Not only in terms of the storage and release of data – its technical capability and process governance, but in the approach to data extraction, fair processing, consent, communication and ongoing management.
This is all too important to rush, and I hope that the feedback and suggestions captured on the day will be incorporated into the production. To do so well, will need time and there is no point in some half-ready dress rehearsal when so much is yet to be done.
The next Big Thing – care.data
When it came to care.data, Andy Williams said it had been a serious failing to not recognise that patients view their GP records quite, totally differently, from the records held at a hospital. Sharing their HES data.
“And it is their data, at the end of the day,” he recognised.
So to conclude looking back, I believe where data sharing has reached, is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was six months ago. The Partridge Review and its recommendations recognises there are problems and makes 9 recommendations. There is lots more the workshop suggested for consideration. If HSCIC wants to achieve brilliance, it needs to practise before going out on a public stage again. The excellence of Chopin’s music does not happen by chance, or through passion alone. To achieve brilliance we cannot follow some romantic notion of ‘it will all be alright on the night’. Hard edged, technical experience knows world-class delivery demands more.
So rolling out care.data as a pathfinder model in autumn before so much good preparation can possibly be done, is in my opinion, utterly pointless. In fact, it would be damaging. It will be like pushing a grade 5 school boy who’s not ready into the limelight, and just wishing him luck, while you wait whistling in the wings. But what will those in charge say?
[9] Classic comedy Morecambe & Wise, with Andre Previn – all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHBN45fbo8
[10] Blog post part two: care.data is like playing Chopin – or will it be all the right notes, but in the wrong order? [Part two – future]
“That November farewell, given in aid of a Polish charity, came at the end of a difficult six-month British sojourn, which had included concerts in Manchester (one of the largest audiences he ever faced), Glasgow and Edinburgh, where the non-religious Chopin had unwillingly endured Bible readings by a pious patroness anxious to convert him to the Church of Scotland. Finally back in London, the composer-pianist spent three weeks preparing for what turned out to be his final recital by sitting wrapped in his coat in front of the fire at St James’s Place, attended by London’s leading homeopath and the Royal Physician, a specialist in tuberculosis. A week after the concert, he was on his way home to Parisian exile and death the following year.”
Born Zelazowa Wola, Poland of a French emigrant father and Polish mother, he left Poland aged 20, never to return. Well known and by some controversially for his long romantic liaison with novelist George Sand (Aurore Dudevant) after they separated his health failed and in 1848 he paid a long visit to Britain where he gave his last public performance at the Guildhall. He died in Paris.
How our data sharing performance will be judged, matters not just today, or in this electoral term but for posterity. The current work-in-progress is not a dress rehearsal for a care.data quick talent show, but the preparations for lifetime performance and at world standard.
How have we arrived where we are now, at a Grand Pause in the care.data performance? I looked at the past, reviewed through the Partridge Review meeting in [part one here] the first half of this post from attending the HSCIC ‘Driving Positive Change’ meeting on July 21st. (official minutes are online via HSCIC >> here.)
Looking forward, how do we want our data sharing to be? I believe we must not lose sight of classical values in the rush to be centre stage in the Brave New World of medical technology. [updated link August 3rd]* Our medical datasharing must be above and beyond the best model standards to be acceptable technically, legally and ethically, worldwide. Exercised with discipline, training and precision, care.data should be of the musical equivalent of Chopin.
Not only does HSCIC have a pivotal role to play in the symphony that the Government wishes research to play in the ‘health & wealth’ future of our economy, but they are currently alone on the world stage. Nowhere in the world has a comparable health data set over such length of time, as we do, and none has ever brought in all it’s primary care records into a central repository to merge and link, as is planned with care.data. Sir Kingsley Manning said in the current July/August Pharma Times article, data sharing now has to manage its reputation, just like Big Pharma.
Pharma Times – July/Aug 2014 http://www.pharmatimes.com/DigitalOnlineArea/digitaleditionlogin.aspx
Countries around the world, will be watching HSCIC, the companies and organisations involved in the management and in the use of our data. They will be assessing the involvement and reaction of England’s population, to HSCIC’s performance. This performance will help shape what is acceptable, works well and failings will be learned from, by other countries, who will want to do the same in future.
Can we rise to the Challenge to be a world leader in Data Sharing?
If the UK Government wants England to be the world leader in research, we need, not only to be exemplary in how we govern the holding, management and release of data, but also exemplary in our ethics model and expectations of each other in the data sharing process.
Regular readers here or on twitter, may notice the new-look.
I’m moving away from The Amateur Book Blogger banner, and will be posting simply as me, as I go on. The start of the summer holidays seemed as good a day as any, to saunter out into the sunshine on my own. [I may even see if it’s worth updating my resultant twitter handle @TheABB]. The reason? This week, the View From Here Magazine announced it will be closing on November 1st, 2014. After seven years on the writing team, it is not only the end of an era, but perhaps the start of a something new.
I started on the comms side, announcing writing events and industry news, and later moved into interviews. It’s been an amazing experience. Editor Mike French was a great remote-mentor. We’ve met only once, at the launch of his latest novel, Convergence, in The Dandelion Trilogy. Mike both enabled and encouraged me to interview some great writers, editors, scouts and publishers, every quarter. I learned something new each time, from every contribution, and had great fun. All of which I enjoyed, but some stand out in the memory more than others, and every one was unique.
Thank you to all whom I have interviewed since 2006, but also to readers and fellow unpublished writers who supported me, the team, and made the community at The View From Here what it is. With eclectic tastes, I learned much on writing, but also enjoyed the art of the creative collective.
The most recent interview I did for them, was here, with Isabel Allende. In her wide ranging career, it was hard to know what to ask and how to narrow it down, but one thing stays with me, in all she said, on the role of a writer:
“Writers have no obligation to comply with the official story or the official version, their only obligation is with their own consciousness. Honesty above all.”
The other part of my writing recently has been more akin to her engagement in politics and civil society. I’ve been on twitter really only for the last nine months, throughout the difficult pregnancy of care.data, pronounced care [dot] data. If you missed it, that’s the government proposed scheme to suck up our GP medical records, merge them with data already held at the central Health and Information Centre from our hospital care, and then use the new, richer record for commissioning purposes and potentially more, as yet undefined. Since our hospital and other health sourced-data is already sold to private companies and will continue to be so in future, but without having asked for informed consent, I’ve been a very skeptical critic and lay voice for positive changes for these wide secondary uses. [In case you’ve landed here for the first time, I’ve a background in tech database implementations, communications and change, and I took it upon myself to fully understand and follow the subject, a year ago when I came across the topic online, by accident.]
It looks now, as though some improvements on past failings will happen, but much remains undefined in detail, and as we all know, that’s where the devil likes to sup. I look forward to seeing some of the recently discussed changes and definitions in the Care Act, for example, becoming concrete.
So, that’s the reason for the insignificant changes on my part, and should I explain the image? I’ve chosen my favourite coffee mug for my header photo, with my favourite scarf. I use both often. The latter, reminds me a little of Bridget Riley’s op art. As a retro fan that appeals to me. The former, depicts the cover of Susan Stebbing’s most popular work Thinking to some purpose (1939) which was described on the cover of the first Pelican Books edition as being:
“A manual of first-aid to clear thinking, showing how to detect illogicalities in other people’s mental processes and how to avoid them in our own”
The work arose out of a synopsis she wrote for a series of radio broadcasts intended for the BBC. Published on the eve of the Second World War, Stebbing wrote:
“There is an urgent need to-day for the citizens of a democracy to think well. It is not enough to have freedom of the Press and parliamentary institutions. Our difficulties are due partly to our own stupidity, partly to the exploitation of that stupidity, and partly to our own prejudices and personal desires.”
Her words seem very timely.
To borrow from Wikipedia here: “This metaphor seems to me to be appropriate, because potted thinking is easily accepted, is concentrated in form, and has lost the vitamins essential to mental nourishment. You will notice that I have continued the metaphor by using the word ‘vitamins.’ Do not accept the metaphor too hastily: it must be expanded.”
“Potted meat is sometimes a convenient form of food; it may be tasty, it contains some nourishment. But its nutritive value is not equivalent to that of the fresh meat from which it was potted. Also, it must have originally been made from fresh meat, and must not be allowed to grow stale. Similarly a potted belief is convenient; it can be stated briefly, sometimes also in a snappy manner likely to attract attention. A potted belief should be the outcome of a belief that is not potted. It should not be held on to when circumstances have changed and new factors have come to light. We should not allow our habits of thought to close our minds, nor rely upon catch-words to save ourselves from the labour of thinking. Vitamins are essential for the natural growth of our bodies; the critical questioning at times of our potted beliefs is necessary for the development of our capacity to think to some purpose.”
So here’s to that, my ‘critical questioning’ may have shifted from one arena into another, but I hope I continue ‘thinking to some purpose’.
I looked in two previous posts at the background theory [1] to commercial uses of our data, then, the background to my concerns of commercial use with data intermediaries. [2] This is now part three, my glimpse into commercial use in real-world practice. It’s become rather a saga.
Here’s the short version: “In general commercial uses of data, I am increasingly learning that if you don’t pay for the product, you are the product. We need to shout a bit louder, that we are not a product for sale. It’s not only that there is an increased risk in a move of our health records from binder to byte and broadening access to them. We take issue with the change of approved purposes from care, to commercial use.”
At the Health Select Committee on July 1st, [3] I believe Sir Manning misses the key issue the public has with care.data and health record sharing, when he gave a response to Q562 to David Tredinnick MP:
‘We made big mistakes over the last 10 years’
“I am saddened by some of the comments that have been made this afternoon about the lack of trust and also by the impugning of our motivation. […]
We made big mistakes over the last 10 years, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to get it right. I am absolutely clear that we have to engage the public in an open debate about the balance of risks and benefits. There will always be risks with data. There were risks with the Lloyd George envelope; notes were lost, they flew and went all over the place. There will always be risks, but those risks and the benefits are both enhanced by the technology.”
Whilst I applaud Sir Manning’s apology, and his call for open debate, I think he misses here the fundamental point of disagreement the public has with the HSCIC current practice. Selling our health data.
It’s not only that there is an increased risk in a move from binder to byte and broadening their access.We take issue with the change of approved purposes from care, to commercial use.
And these commercial (ab)uses in current form must stop if we are to trust the governance system in future.
Health Records for Commercial sale
HSCIC currently sells our health records for commercial purposes, to intermediaries with commercial re-use licenses, and had no consent nor our permission for this in the past, it continues to do so in the present and appears to have no concern or intention to stop doing so, for the future.
Mr. Kelsey added at the HS Committee,
“We have a very big job to do, and I hope that you will hold us to account in delivering it.”
To which I can only reply, it is you who say it. But who is accountable? The Open Debate which Sir Manning calls for has not been taken up by NHS England. We are told this is a programme of national importance, one which Mr. Kelsey has repeatedly said, including to the Health Select Committee previously, on which the entire future of the NHS depends. Why then, no national discussion, no news since the pause and a focus on updated communications of the current plan. The current plan with flaws in consent collection, scope determination, confusion of purposes.
There are so many ways this could be improved and gotten right, but not by November and without public debate.
How can you insist a programme so vital for the entire future of the NHS yet encourage no public discussion? This seems to be a theme in NHS England recent programmes. [4] The decision to outsource the GP support services was taken in private sessions, not available to the public like the rest of the Board Meetings [5]. Other programmes, pilot and actual plans for implementation go on without public discussion.
There’s been no apology for the data sharing policy developed since 2010 which has encouraged commercial trading and enabled this erosion of security, confidentiality and trust in the data management system of our nation’s health records. No one at the Department of Health has said, we got this policy wrong. No one at NHS England, the same people if under a different label. Poor Sir Manning at the Information Centre who carried out their policy, has been left to say there were ‘big mistakes’ made. But not by him since July 2013.
Trust and care.data off course
That our trust now lies in tatters, is not the fault of the Health Select Committee member to whom Sir Manning says, he is saddened and disappointed. It’s not Joe Public’s fault who had no idea this was going on, until six months ago. Where did these policies and plans since 2010 come from? Where did the use of our data go so astray and why is flagship care.data now so terribly off course? Mr. Cameron outlined it in 2011. What happened in the three years?
Health records for sale
As I wrote in a previous post,
“Some of that data goes back into our health market as business intelligence, both for NHS and private use, for benchmarking, comparisons and making commercial decisions. In our commissioning based marketplace, this re-use of data is now becoming normalised.”
But should it be normal that our medical records are for sale?
When celebrity Michael Schumacher’s notes are for sale, [6] being offered concretely to the media, we all see that is wrong. Just imagine 70 million copies of Schumi’s record, each with our own name on it, being offered to anyone outside of those who need it for our care. Offered to these commercial for-profit data intermediaries. It’s not a theory – this is what is happening to our records, today. Don’t accept the ‘anonymised’ statements, they’re simply not true. Identifiable data and pseudonymous data has been sold. The register confirms it, and that was only a 10% sample.
“To earn the public’s trust in future, we must be able to show that our controls are meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock.”
I think banning data sharing for commercial use and re-use would be a good start.
What is it to be used for and why?
When we think of our health records being used by others, we need to separate the uses of the data, in order to understand different ways it is used, who uses it and why. Data once it is processed becomes knowledge which is used as Business Intelligence. It is common in discussion to conflate use in care with care.data. It’s even in the name. But the uses of care.data are secondary. Not to be used by clinicians caring for us, not replacing hospital notes to give to consultants when we are referred for a hospital stay. Not providing discharge papers. It’s only approved for commissioning and sketchily [imo] approved for risk stratification. [ref p.5 ] [8]
care.data extracted from GP surgeries, is not even approved for research purposes, but to read all the recent debates you’d think research depended on it. Research using GP extracted patient data, is not an approved use of care [dot] data. Research using GP extracted patient data is not an approved use of care [dot] data. Repeat, ad nauseaum.
What is already being done, and what is used legitimately i research such as public health (albeit without our past knowledge or consent), is with our hospital data, HES, SUS, Mental Health data, usually with CAG review, and through 251 approval sometimes through DAAG review at HSCIC – it is available and is on sale to all sorts of other non-care providers. And that is planned to continue.
The records extracted so far, when not used for research appear in recent years increasingly used for comparison, the concept of ‘ranking and spanking’ professionals and providers of healthcare. They are also used in commissioning, payment validation and understanding costs and spending. But beyond that, there are all sorts of others who still come under the umbrella of ‘health purposes’ but don’t directly benefit the NHS or individual patients. What is their demand and what are they being supplied?
In the newly created NHS marketplace, customers at individual level are patients, or at a market level they could be any part of the healthcare buying structure, a GP practice, a Clinical Commissioning Group, a Hospital Trust.
The challenge of any demand and supply chain process, is that you need a market willing to pay at the price you are prepared to sell. And you need to offer what they want to buy. For that, the buyers must see a value in the data they want to obtain. Where is the value for these areas of use: Generic NHS Business Intelligence, Generic Commercial Intelligence and Pharmaceutical intelligence?
Health records as Business Intelligence
Some companies take data and process it before selling it to NHS and other health providers in England. This provides a third party service and skill set which the HSCIC nor the NHS Trust for example, has themselves, such as IMS Health.
So business intelligence used for the benefit of the NHS, makes sense and is necessary to a greater or lesser degree depending on your attitudes to comparison websites, green/red flagging professionals and commissioning. Benchmarking was provided by Tribal until that part of their business was bought out by Capita.
These companies’ experience and market is healthcare. The kind of knowledge they can give to the NHS is highlighted in their case studies.
So for clinical care, and for commissioning at individual organisations, these tools are clearly useful and use individual patient level data. [9]
Al sorts of other places and individuals perform these services. They include a wide range of commercial organisations, small and large.
Health records as Commercial Marketing Intelligence
Commercial buyers however, can include wanting data for identity verification, fraud prevention and background checks. Services such as Experian offer. These may be what the loose definition in the Care Act would say are now banned, but are they? What is to say that a company which offers the use of private health services, healthy eating or pharmaceutical marketing is not providing information to others, for the promotion of health?
“Experian employs more than 12,500 people in 34 countries worldwide, supporting clients in more than 60 countries. Annual sales are $3.1 billion (£1.7bn/ v2.5bn).”
Identity verification can be done, matching data across a biographic footprint, ” in databases, established for 45 million UK citizens and hold in excess of 1 billion records.”
“Experian public sector currently works with 380 plus local authorities, 52 police and investigatory bodies, as well as central government agencies including DVLA, HMRC, DWP and the Cabinet Office.” [10]
There is clearly a lot of data sharing in the public sector, about which we may understand very little. But mostly the buyers of data want to sell something. Companies buy lists of people to use in marketing campaigns, who might be interested in what they’re selling — and companies also want to learn more about their current customers.
This is where I find the level of detail and what is done with our data, more than a little freaky.
Every UK consumer is classified into one of 22 types, aggregated into six groups. The 22 types are linked to six decision-making styles, providing insight into consumers’ motivations when using different media and the processes they go through in deciding about products and services.
I don’t know what segment I am in. But I know that I will have data stored in many of those different data sources they mention. So do they actually know more about my habits and inclination, that I have self-awareness? If their tool has over 850 million input sources which they process, it’s more than likely. 34 million email addresses, 20 million mobile phone numbers, 49.7m names and addresses.
Experian may well have much of this data from the electoral roll (unless like me, you opted out of these uses) but in the HSCIC January-April 2014 register of releases [7] data was given to Experian for use in Mosaic. (see July – 132kb right of page)
“Mosaic is Experian’s powerful cross-channel consumer classification designed to help you understand the demographics, lifestyles, preferences and behaviours of the UK adult population in extraordinary detail.” [12]
That they understand and track my behaviours probably better than I do, and at such detailed level, I find surprising and invasive. In fact, I find it threatening in a similar vein to the visceral reaction that the Facebook experiment generated this week online.
As SF Gate reported,
“Using unsuspecting members as human guinea pigs is repugnant. And when the biggest social network on the planet does it, can its leaders be trusted with their own technology?”
This idea that just because one can and the technology permits it, does not mean that one should. It just feels wrong to find out others may manipulate our thinking and behaviours in such a targeted way. Just as Experian does with consumer data:
“Within rural areas we are able to pick out the individual households that are likely to be commuting to towns and cities nearby…”[12]
Individual households? Understanding my behaviours, gives them information which they use to nudge or influence my decision making. Understanding our behaviour ‘in extraordinary detail’ helps companies market and sell more to customers.
There are other re-uses even for health purposes, which seem less transparent and more about us as general consumers, rather than for our health. For example, the use of HES data is in social marketing targeting:
“In this way, companies who process data such as Beacon Dodsworth received data in the last year and offered it for commercial exploitation by others “HES data may be used by pharmaceutical companies “to improve [their] social marketing / media awareness campaigns”. Others included OmegaSolver and Harvey Walsh.”
These companies have re-use licenses for data. what that means is better explained here by medconfidential. [14]
How will HSCIC know how data will be used after release and how will it be audited and how often? When it comes to human tissue, the HTA only audits tissue banks in the UK once every three years. That’s a long time in between audits if something has gone horribly wrong in best practice.
Health records as Commercial Pharmaceutical Intelligence
To global pharma it is again not the data itself which is of value, but in the knowledge it reveals. The pharma business intelligence. It can show at an individual level what is being prescribed or show any gaps it reveals, which will allow pharma, to address ‘unmet clinical need.’ The data already compares hospital prescribing and reports make recommendations used by NICE on what drugs to use and recommend. My concern is that to treat the worried well who have cash to spend, will deflect attention from the needs of the sick and poor and that even if only at postcode level, we will be targeted for pharmaceutical marketing.
“The parties will initially look at how anonymised, integrated health data can be used to identify unmet clinical need in patients with diabetes. In the UK, diabetes affects approximately 2.9 million adults overall, with more than 90% of these patients having type 2 diabetes. This makes diabetes one of the most common chronic medical conditions and represents a significant strain on U.K. health services.”
Astra has another Memorandum with IMS Health. So we, whose data it is, have zero transparency and can request no accountability for the use of our data once it has left the HSCIC.
And it matters because when there are data breaches in these companies, we should know whether our data has been involved.
In January 2012 AstraZeneca signed a three year partnership with IMS MOU[16] and stated it builds on AstraZeneca’s existing ‘real-world’ data and research partnership with HealthCore in the US, the health outcomes research subsidiary of WellPoint. Wellpoint which had a massive breach a year ago, July 2013. So how do we know where our data was stored, and if it were involved or not? Here is what pharma use data for, to analyse “unmet clinical need.”
“The partnership with IMS Health will give AstraZeneca access to pre-existing anonymised electronic health records, which include clinical outcome, economic and treatment pattern data. In addition, the companies will jointly develop a customised research and data analysis platform. The information will provide a deeper insight into how medicines that are already on the market are working in real-world settings across Europe, painting a picture of unmet needs …”
We can look at this more than one way. Some feel strongly commercial use should exclude Big Pharma. On the one hand, the State and Government does not own manufacturing of drugs nor medical products. Though we used to do both. Recently, that we did own, has been increasingly sold to commercial buyers or venture capitalists.
The State and pharma work together, often through University research, to create future health solutions, drugs and the drive towards personalised medicine and diagnostic tests. When companies which own our data are sold and bought internationally what happens to our data they own? Boots Alliance bought data from HSCIC, and they are about to be bought by US Walgreens. So many questions.
Those more informed than me will know all about the challenges of pharmaceutical companies, the patent cliff, mergers and diversification. IP, diagnostic tests and generics in the market. Big Pharma and the State are working together in much research to find solutions and discoveries to current and future medical issues.
How far does cooperation stretch and when does it become inappropriate? Is commercial interest supportive of State practice or driving decision making policy? Should commercial companies fund any costs at our NGOs? And do those which buy the most data, get a bigger slice of the influence of what conclusions reports using the data, reach? Whilst there is a public move to #Alltrials I believe we should demand #Allreports in the public interest as well. I would like to have transparency at HSCIC how their reports are funded, when working with partners which are frequently commercial pharma partnerships.
Mr. Hunt recently defended to the Health Select Committee the reasons why a commercially supported pharma lobbying group was used to advise on the NHS Commissioning plan – the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. Supported by 14 pharma companies, these corporate members are contributing £12,000 each towards the costs of the Alliance for 2014.
Are we really seeing transparency on who is driving change in our health service?
The Richness of our records open for Exploitation
The value of Big Data is only extracted by exploiting its richness. And these days, with mobile phones, social media and shopping habits tracked by the minute, the average citizen like me, it seems can’t easily avoid being part of it, whether we want to be or not.
But if we don’t even have the right to control and own our data and we can’t control the knowledge generated from it, how can we control who knows what about us and what they use it for? If we’re unaware of its existence, how can we understand its impact on our life to make free and uninfluenced choices in what we buy, for example? Or understand how we may be segmented and discriminated against. And this is aside from the assumption that the data held is accurate and that as a result, no mistaken judgements are being made about us.
As for our health data, how can we control its use by these massive data managers if we don’t even know who they are at the end of a chain of re-use licenses?
Put Business Intell, Commercial Intell and Pharma together
The vast amounts of data already held and analysed to the nth degree by these data intermediaries, means that making even more data available to them is going to increase the segmentation and risk of identification. They already have data on individuals and is it not enough that they make analysis at household level as shown by Mosaic? Individual health level data seems that they could put a final piece in the puzzle and know exactly who in which house had which ailments, their lifestyle risk factors could be refined and these data brokers would be able to look inside our very bodies.
One which fits data together, we do know from the HSCIC data release register, and press reports in March, is Harvey Walsh. The company tracks individuals pathway data, over time and the website now says:
“Harvey Walsh use non-sensitive and non-identifiable HES data for patient pathway mapping that is used by the healthcare industry with the NHS to improve the quality of healthcare management and service delivery by better understanding how patient cohorts move around the healthcare system.”
[Harvey Walsh’s system] “AXON holds non identifiable and non-sensitive HES (Hospital Episode Statistics) data and other sources of data including GP Practice Prescribing, QOF, Demographic and NHS personnel data sets.”
Data snapshots combine to give a Picture over a Lifetime
So now, not only can these companies understand us in infinite detail, but can do so over our lifetime. We are tracked over time and anaylsed not as a snapshot, but as a living album of snaps, moving across time. They know what we do commercially, in our lifestyle and how it interacts with our health and what may affect our consumer habits and help nudge our decision making. Put them together, and it starts to feel like I’m on The Truman Show.
I’d like to know though, once the data is processed, what happens to the new combined knowledge set, it creates? The original raw data as extracted may not be given to others, but is it the same product and protected, if it now shows up as a small piece, in a bigger jigsaw?
Omega Solver took their product offline this year, after privacy campaigners identified the risk of identifying individuals.
Acxiom as a world data leader example, is a company which provides consumer data and analytics for marketing campaigns and fraud detection. Its databases contain information about 700 million consumers worldwide.
“For more than 40 years, Acxiom has been a leader in harnessing the powerful potential of data.”
It seems others share my concerns, as this article on how data brokers use of our data is creepy, from Julia Angwen showed up in my alert feed this week, and another in ProPublica from last September. As she says,
You can see more on this, in her interview with PBS News:
Our lifetime data is attractive to commercial marketing and all sorts of organisations who wish to understand us and sell to us. The one purpose, possibly the least trusted I have not really touched on. Hospital records have been shared with insurers and used for refining policy. Records have been sold to re-insurers, even since January 2014. And these insurers mine and use data much more deeply than we want to imagine. In fact, as I finish this I see the FT front page tomorrow carries a current story how insurers trawl our Big Data.
FT Insurers trawl Big Data
HSCIC Data Sharing Agreements will prevent Data Merger?
IMS Health UK & Ireland’s general manager, Michael Sanvoisin shows that exploiting the different data sets ‘out there’ in Big Data, is kind of the whole point. [17]
“The smartest use of data will be the effective combination of all the various sources of open data and patient information services available in the marketplace, augmented by companies’ own internal information and data from other reliable and reputable sources.”
IMS Health is working in partnership with the MHRA – and in particular the clinical practice research datalink (CPRD) – to help the UK increase its capabilities to build cohorts of patients for clinical trials. This has led to the linkage of IMS Health’s Hospital Treatment Insights (HTI), the aggregation of HES and prescribing data, to the CPRD. This powerful linked dataset enables the identification of specific patient cohorts and allows companies to monitor patient flow between primary and secondary care. IMS Ardentia’s Costed Care Pathways (CCP) sequences clinical events together with detailed financial information to give a longitudinal view of a particular patient care pathway.” [17]
When these global companies have in addition, bought data from HSCIC, where is the transparency for patients to know what internal practice at these private companies prevents all data becoming one Big Data set, in identifiable or pseudonymous formats, and sold or shared onwards with others?
The Recent register states explicitly, that IMS will not do this, that the data will not be sold onwardly, but how about theknowledge they create from it?
“ANDromeda is an engagement tool enabling greater market access with a tailored need across all functions within pharmaceutical companies.
And in the UK, are involved in work shaping our health market: “that may involve looking at how primary care organisations operate or focusing even closer on area-level commissioning, such as GP consortiums.”
Where is our Data being Used?
“The effective combination of IMS Health’s proprietary data assets, in addition to the vast swathes of open data being made available, can help inform key strategic decisions for both the NHS and pharma. Moreover, it can drive an increase in joint working towards shared benefits and therefore transform healthcare services in the UK and beyond.”
“in the UK and beyond.” So I ask myself, which countries outside the UK have received our medical records? Remembering that non-US citizens have no privacy rights in the US, if it landed there, we can say good bye to ever getting control of that knowledge back again.
Indeed HES extracts have been given to places in the US, specifically the University of California, the FOI request I got back confirmed. The Partridge Report contained two examples of data which has gone to Kyoto University. Yes, Japan. And remember, if the data is completely aggregated and anonymised it’s not included in these registers, because it is open, green data. So what exactly went to California, Japan and who knows where else. No one knows 100%. The Report only sample tested 10% of all releases.
IMS received 251 access (which is required for confidential data without consent) for identifiable data extracted from hospital pharmacy systems, sent to HSCIC and linked with HES (hospital records). The main customer for these products will be the pharmaceutical industry. (Lines 101-2).
IMS Health is massive, as is the global health data they hold.
On the IMS One intelligent cloud, the company connects more than 10 petabytes of complex healthcare data on diseases, treatments, costs and outcomes to enable our clients to run their operations more efficiently.
Drawing on information from 100,000 suppliers, and on insights from more than 45+ billion healthcare transactions processed annually, IMS Health’s 9,500+ professionals drive results for over 5,000 healthcare clients globally. Customers include pharmaceutical, medical device and consumer health manufacturers and distributors, providers, payers, government agencies, policymakers, researchers and the financial community.
Another user of our data is Optum UK (formerly United Health Group, and if that sounds familiar it was Simon Stevens [18] last employer). I wonder for example, does that mean it is also used by Optum Insight in the US? This presentation by Christopher M. Blanchette, shows different data providers of ‘RWE’ real-world evidence and where their data is sourced.
If international companies have NHS England patient data and re-use licence, is it likely in to have been exported around the world or how can we know in which locations it is used? I want to know how often data is given directly to International companies? How often is data given to companies in the UK, who have foreign centres outside the UK, which would routinely share that data with their central systems and therefore export it? It is a basic right of data management to require fair processing for identifiable data, to know who has it for what purpose.
How do we protect consumers’ concerns?
And as US Commissioner Julie Brill’s report shows, in the States there are concerns how this data is used and they are acting on it. Are we doing the same here?
Dr.Neil Bhatia in Hampshire, a GP who founded the non-commercial website care-data.info, asked HSCIC in an FOI request for the data *about him* which was released to these type of intermediaries. He was told, the data controller, the Health and Information Centre, does not know. And he can’t ask for what data is held in pseudonymous format – even though the data is pseudonymous with a key to make it linkable with new identifiable data coming in, so to me, that makes little sense. It is by its nature, re-identifiable.
But if HSCIC won’t release it in a Subject Access Request (SAR), we can then only surmise, whether our individual data was contained in bulk data transfers. So from the released data register, we should look at what types of companies are using pseudonymous (so called ‘amber’ data), and assume our own data was indeed included.
Overseas Data Distribution and Protection
care.data, it was said at the Health Select Committee meeting by Mr.Kelsey in March, was only for use in the UK but the HES/SUS data application form includes a field for use overseas. So, does that mean policy for export has changed for all data, or should they have spoken more precisely meaning only that “GP data extracted in care.data” was only to be used in the UK?
Because IMS, again, already has access to primary data from CPRD and secondary care data according to line 10 from HES. And whilst, it states “[Note added 28/3: The data are onwardly released only in aggregate form] I am curious – where does ‘onward’ mean? There is no Ltd. on the company name, no territory or geography indicated in the register. So if data is released to an American firm, should we assume it sits on US servers and is accessed directly by their US staff? Does onward only restrict them from giving the raw, identifiable data they received, to others outside IMS? Is it availble in non-aggregate form inside the whole of the IMS system? I, in the general public, can’t tell from the register and IMS is hardly going to tell me. We should be able to find out. I’ve found it a challenge, and my FOI request to HSCIC [14] to find out what data may have been given to US or Asian organisations, was tougher than my entire lifetime of dental appointments combined. It shouldn’t be difficult. Patients should be able to easily ask, to whom did you give my health data and where, for what?
Do we know enough about the plans to use and commercially re-use our data for commercial ‘health purposes’ as being broadly defined in the Care Act? If not, patients should be asking. GPs don’t have time.
Why does it matter? Because legal jurisdiction of data is still (perhaps outdatedly) physically geographic at least in aspects with which I am familiar. When working on global implementations of confidential employment data, we had to gain legal advice from each territory submitting data, on how we should legally properly manage data from over 50 countries in the world and its access by regional and global teams in the US, Europe or Asia. And on simple terms, we should always handle, process and use data in a way the individual expects and feels common-sensed appropriate to the purpose for which it was submitted. British citizens are not protected by US privacy laws because they apply only to US citizens.
“Existing laws do not sufficiently address data brokers’ handling of sensitive data in marketing or risk mitigation contexts,”
says Julie Brill’s statement. Well they don’t protect us Brits, at all, so I want to know if it’s being used abroad.
Few in England, will expect their data to have been made as freely available at identifiable individual pathway level, as it appears to have been in recent years. Do I at least have the chance to protect my children’s future data privacy, if not my own now?
Surely we can trust Data Protection Laws?
Because of the legal status of data which is deemed “de-identified” or “anonymized”, it is claimed they don’t violate our rights to health information privacy – Data Protection law accords us only the right to fair processing, not to prevent its processing, due to the the Health and Social Care Act 2012 which requires its extraction — but if it’s possible to re-identify longitudinal data sets – and if the whole point of getting these data sets together is to combine them, surely common sense would say, it may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right. There are other DPA expectations which HSCIC also fails to meet. The Minimum data required, for example. Deletion. Accuracy. I am guessing that every single one of the eight Principles have been broken by our data extracted before the HSC Act 2012. Yet, everyone seems to be ignoring this.
When it comes to Data Protection, identifiable data is treated differently from anonymous data. Amber individual level ‘pseudonymous’ data, is not the same as aggregated anonymous statistics and the care.data privacy impact assessment [19] confirms the risk of re-identification, yet the data is being treated as if it is anonymous. I can’t believe people working in the field believe themselves these data groups should be looked on as being equal. In my opinion, it’s not so much a case of wearing rose-tinted spectacles, it’s more like a blindfold on the wise monkeys; hear no evil, see no evil. [20]
I can quite clearly state on behalf of many, we feel that our rights to privacy have been and continue to be violated, no matter what the letter of the law says.
Whilst HSCIC may see only its own data sharing practices in a silo, that’s not how the impact of its sharing works in real life. It’s a join the dots between different data sets from different sources.
Can Good Governance Give us Confidence?
We are told that data-sharing agreements make it illegal for the data to be combined with other data held by the recipient, to make it identifying. But if the Data Controller doesn’t know what data the company already has, and doesn’t even keep track of what data has been given to them already, it must be impossible for individuals within these massive corporations to know the impact of adding their piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Over time, they will not track either, what from their company has already gone into creating the Big Data picture.
We could only rely on release controls and good governance, but for the past ten years reported in HSJ and the Partridge Review, it appears some datasets have been inappropriately shared without audit, which would have spotted the mistake. Governance is simply inadequate. In my opinion, not with malicious intent. Rather, simply, the data sharing strategy has been too fast for its own good practices to keep up. Now, it has to catch up fast.
As awareness increases, so too is the push back on the privacy grab. How do we feel about losing our individual rights, the removal of confidentiality and consent, the right to freedom from cold-calling, and to know who has our data for what reasons. And do we feel the same if we lose those rights in the name of commercial or public interests?
The British public is pushing back on banking failures and resents increasingly to see the minority of individuals benefiting commercially at the expense of the many. We resent the paternal state definition of the ‘Public Good’.
The public interest considered by CAG in reviews of data release applications, must consider protecting both the public interest in research access to confidential patient data and the public interest in a confidential health service. Add to that the public interest of providing a national health service, and its safe to say ‘the public interest’ will be hard to satisfy for all of the people, all of the time and will be subjective.
“that the purpose for which the data will be used should be in the public interest and for the provision of health and care services; [and] that any approved processing must respect and promote the privacy of patients and care service users… ” (Hansard, 10 March 2014, Col.137)
Perhaps even more subjective, is the atmosphere of public interestand how interested the public is, in how how level decisions affect us on the ground. Certainly, Snowden and other data sharing revelations have coloured the muddy backdrop of how our data is gathered and used by others, and increased calls for transparency.
The Department of Health will be furious with the Home Office I expect this weekend, as they triggered a massive outcry over the perceived lack of transparency and scrutiny afforded to MPs and civil society over the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill. Even Radio 2 gave it 20 minutes coverage. [22] (From 01:36.40) This kind of governmental out-of-touchness with the public and the perceived desire to hide something in the rush to the new legislation, is what undermines trust in all areas of the public-state relationship.
It implies a paternal notion, of “we know best, so just trust us little children.” Well, that ain’t gonna fly. Seahaven is not “the way the world should be.”
Patient empowerment to own our Health Records
This flawed process, within and beyond NHS data sharing, has also created a sense of loss and disempowerment. Whilst presentations are all about ‘patient centred’ care, and ‘personalised medicine’ sounds so about the individual patient, it seems safe to say patients have been left out of the digital decision making and sharing how those decisions will affect the public on the ground. This for care.data, should have been central to plans to ensure support and success. There are still unfilled positions supposed to be filled by patient organisations or patients on the tech board.
It seems endemic to new programmes too. Or have patient organisations been widely involved in the genomic plans for the nation and not told us? Unlikely.
The talk thus far, does not match the walk. Knowledgable patient involvement is as desired by some of those leading parts of NHS patient engagement, as a chocolate teapot is useful. One is documented having said on another programme, “this was not a suitable point for patient involvement.” Either you want patients involved or not. Involved means from the beginning. Not as the decoration at the end, a way to tick the engagement box.
The notional idea of patient empowerment in this programme is tokenism, if the most basic principle of care, the only thing I can control in my consultation – my patient confidentiality – is treated with such little respect.
Is the public good really defined and does it outweigh the private good and our long established rights of consent and confidentiality? Does it vary depending on circumstance and if so, who decides?
It certainly doesn’t seem to be us, the patients in healthcare. Nor as citizens in any other field of our personal data.
If you don’t pay for the product, you are the product
In general commercial uses of data, I am increasingly learning that if you don’t pay for the product, you are the product. Maybe we need to shout a bit louder, that we are not a product. We do not all want the knowledge of our health & lifestyle to be for sale.
We’ve got used to these third party uses through the recent media revelations and the acceptance that current Government seems to be prepared to sell anything the State has in its possession. I wonder how representative that is of what the people would choose to do?
So at the risk of repetition, let’s not forget the basics:
The list of past customers in the Partridge Review of those who received data before April 2013 shows the extent of what was hidden from us for twenty years.
Should we be asking, what may be hidden still?
By stretching the scope of the potential discussion around the ‘industrialisaton’ and use of our health records for secondary purposes, we must not normalise the basics which we at first, found so surprising. We need to get them fixed first. Then, only then, will patients be willing to look at broader future scope. If I can’t trust you to manage my hospital record when I broke an ankle, why would I want to trust you with my genomes in future? It reveals a complete disconnect at NHS England level with the public in care.data thinking.
Come back to reality and listen to patients’ real concerns. We don’t want our data given to third parties, these data brokers and intermediaries or to continue re-use licenses. Even if it’s for ‘the promotion of health’ the purposes in the Care Bill.
And honestly? NHS England and the Department of Health shouldn’t want that acceptable in policy either, because they need to know who has our data, to govern it to make sure it is acceptable. As Sir Nick says in his report, the future data governance must be:
“meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock”
One more big mistake in who received our data in the future, and all cards will be off the table. For this to work, you need to properly manage it. And all this at the time where NHS England has now decided to outsource population wide databases, through the Steria outsourcing. Ha. Get that outsourcing security wrong, and for all your future programmes, as Truman would say, “Good morning, and in case I don’t see ya: Good afternoon, good evening, and good night!”
In the words of more Americans for whom I have a respect & love of their self-determined own words, Simon and Garfunkel, ‘Slow down, you move too fast.’
Julie Brill’s Statement made a recommendation in the US:
“A second accountability measure that Congress should consider is to require data brokers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their original sources of information obtained appropriate consent from consumers.”
We should feel that we consent to this mining of our health, wealth and lifestyles and know what is done with that knowledge. I feel disempowered because in finding out how my health data is used, I’ve discovered a brave new world of how my personal data is used. By commercial business. By Government. By suits and wonks as may be nicknamed. I am not equipped or informed enough to understand it all, but I’m doing my best to find out.
We need to trust in the people who manage these systems, who drive the policy and who advise the two, to work together and make technology work well for the rest of us. It should work well with privacy and security, and functionally.
Patients must speak up and Ask Questions
Patients must start asking more questions about these commercial uses and re-use licenses, because whilst the commercial intermediaries may access data for the purposes permitted in the Care Act, we are not a partner in patient engagement. Our data is being mined in the name of NHS improvement. Our samples being gathered in the name of science.
We are the product for sale. Our name, and everything else about us.
[3] Health Select Committee July 1st, 2014: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/health-committee/handling-of-nhs-patient-data/oral/11192.html
[9] IMS Health Ardentia http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Technology/Technology%20Platforms/Ardentia/Ardentia_Royal_Free_PLICS.pdf
[10] Experian Public Sector http://www.experian.co.uk/assets/identity-and-fraud/authenticate-for-public-sector.pdf
[17] IMS Health using NHS patient data http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/ims/Global/Content/Solutions/Healthcare%20Analytics%20and%20Services/Healthcare%20Outcomes/IMS_HTI.pdf
“My concerns about care.data are heightened, not allayed by the NHS England apparently relentless roll-out and focus on communications. Whilst they say it will take as long as it needs, there is doublespeak talk of Oct-Nov. pilots. It is still all about finding the right communications, not fixing flaws in core concepts.”
Today at the Health Select Committee Mr. Tim Kelsey, on behalf of NHS England, said that care.data pilots will be in October/ November and in the meantime they are listening to the “constructive challenge to NHS England how to build trust in the [care.data] programme.”
Here’s my real experience of that listening, why it may not help and what still needs done. (And in under 4 months if in time to be of any use for the pathfinder pilots, which are only of use to the whole if done properly. )
[Part one] care.data communications and core concepts – Ten takeaways from the Open House event.
The NHS England led Open House Day [1] on June 17th was a listening opportunity according to the draft agenda for:
“patients and the public to influence the work of NHS England at national and regional level.”
Here are some of the things I learned:
1. Public Awareness
Mr.Kelsey asked the room (he was in London, other locations took part by live link) how many have:
a) heard of care (dot) data and
b) how many think they understand what it is is?
We couldn’t see his room, but he said ‘about half’ understood it. Our room’s show of hands was similar.
My reaction: One would expect everyone attending to have heard of it, the event after all was billed as in part about care.data. The level of understanding should be higher than the average in the public, since many (in Basingstoke at least) were NHS England or more involved than the average citizen.
Feedback overall was consistent with the latest MORI Ipsos poll [2] commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in which the minority know it well and over 50% say they have never heard of it. That’ s a long way to go to reach people, inform them adequately to meet legal Data Protection minimums and let them enact their patient choice.
2. Communications Message & Scope
A consistent, frequent communications message is that ” there are FAQs and materials, we have the answers, we just need to communicate them better.”
My response: communication is failing because the core scope of what care.data is, is fluid. Without something concrete and limited, it cannot be explained neatly. As one NHS England communications member of staff said to me this week, ‘we haven’t got an elevator pitch.’ So it’s not about the materials or the methods, it’s the substance that is flawed. When you’re talking about extracting, storing, sharing and selling some of our most intimate information, a vague notion of pooled experience is not good enough to trust. People want to know exactly what information, is being shared for what purpose, with whom, where. And how long will they keep it for? NHS England simply do not have the answers to that, so, that elevator pitch? It’s never going to get off the ground in a meaningful way. And anything less than the answers to those questions, doesn’t meet the Fair Processing requirement of Data Protection Law.
Today at the Health Select Committee Mr.Kelsey was asked, will patients be able to trace in future where their data went? There was a rare and stunning silence. And after a benefits statement, there was still no answer given to the question. [update: Hansard now available, Q525/526]
Scope cannot be fluid and changing – the use of our personal information that we sign up to today, must stay what we agreed to tomorrow.
Data Protection requires that the minimum data is extracted so this ever increasing scope creep, but only *one* chance at opt out are at odds with each other. What plans are in place to meet Data Protection fair processing EVERY time new things should be added and more data could be extracted? It’s a legal necessity. An ongoing change communications process MUST be in place.
3. Timing
Mr. Kelsey said, on rollout timing that NHS England would take it ‘as slowly as we need to.’
My response: This reiterates the ‘no artificial deadlines’ but appears to be doublethink in contrast with the statement confirming ‘autumn 2014’ extraction for Pathfinder (pilot) 100-500 practices. How will the pathfinder (pilot) locations be ready to test a communications process which as yet does not exist? How will it pilot a consent process for young people, the vulnerable, those with complex health system needs, the at risk, those outside ‘the system’ with GP records? A process which by its nature must be applied to any opt in or opt out choice, if others make a decision on their behalf yet from the meetings’ discussion, whose informed consent appears not even begun to be considered? Or how will solutions to past Data protection Law failings be found from thin air, when data has been breached in the past, continues to be shared in the present and there is no solution to resolving those failings for the future?
4. Language simplification
There is a tendency to oversimplify the language of the Care Act, into ‘care.data will not be used for any purpose other than ‘health benefit’ – whereas benefit is not mentioned in the wording:
My response: Is to question why this is? Does benefit sound better than promotion perhaps? Again, words should be used accurately.
5. Users simplification of the Care.Act wording
The actual wording is ‘the promotion of health’.
NHS England are similarly very keen to point out explicitly that care.data cannot possibly be used for insurance or marketing purposes, such as junk mail.
My response: Yet again, the wording of the Care Act does not state this explicitly. In fact, it leaves pharmaceutical marketing for example, quite open, ‘for the promotion of health’. And there is no legal barrier in the Care Act per se, for firms which receive data for one purpose, such as BUPA the hospital provider in London, using it for another, such as BUPA as refining premiums. BUPA Health Dialog received individual level patient data in the past. How do those patients know what it was then used for or shared with? Perhaps Data Sharing Agreements can specify this, but the Care Act, does not.
Claims to rule out “solely commercial” can’t be backed up by the wording of the Act. Will “the promotion of health” still permit uses such as marketing by pharmacies or ‘healthy eating’ campaigns from big food chains? There is no obvious definition – and leaves wide interpretation open.
When Sir Manning spoke at the Health Select Committee he (rightly) said HSCIC can only restrict and determine what they do ‘within the law’. The law needs to be tight if the purposes are to be tight. Loose law, loose uses.
6. Use by Data Intermediaries to continue
care.data will continue to be on offer to third party Data Intermediaries it was confirmed in the panel Q&A.
My response: some third party intermediaries in part perform outsourced data services for the NHS. But do they also use the data within their own business to inform their business intelligence markets? They sell knowledge gleaned from raw data onwards, or have commercial re-use licenses for raw data over which we in the public have no visibility or transparency. We cannot see within these businesses how they build their own ‘Chinese walls’, self-imposed restrictions to ensure security between different parts of the same umbrella organisation. Allowing third parties to re-sell data means control over its use, owners and management is lost forever. Not secure, transparent or trustworthy. I explore their uses with commercial brokers more here in a previous post. [3] Considering I was told that my personal confidential data will not be shared with third parties, in a letter signed by the Secretary of State for Health, I am most unhappy about this. I will find it hard to trust new statements of best intent, without legislation to govern them.
7. Data Lab – restricting user access
Mr. Kelsey indicated that going forward the default access to our health data will be on the premises of HSCIC, the so called “Fume cupboard” or “Data Lab.” However he noted, this would not be for all, but be the ‘default’.
”The default will be access it on the premises of the IC. That won’t be universal for all organisations….”
My questions: Whilst a big improvement from giving away chunks of raw data via CD or to remote users, these processes need documented and publicly communicated for us to trust they will work. When will it be built and operational? How will we know who all the end users are if the same rules do not apply to all? How will those exceptions be granted? Documented? Audited? Will raw data extraction still be permitted? It’s the exceptions which cause issues and in future, the processes and how they are seen to be governed must be whiter than white. For those with direct access, users of the HDIS or HES, will a transparent list of users be published? At least for now, they do not show up on extraction audits so the public cannot see what those users access or why. So, a good step, but can’t stand alone.
Until this secure data lab is physically built, any data extracted cannot go into it. That won’t happen by October/November I should think. So will NHS England be prepared to extract data anyway, into a setting they *know* is LESS secure and a NOT yet a safe setting?
8. Governance
We were informed, an Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel (IIGOP), chaired by Dame Fiona Caldicott, has agreed to advise the care.data Programme Board to evaluate the first phase pathfinder (pilot) stage.
My feedback: I find this interesting not least because the Information Governance Review [4] under her direction in March 2013 decided that commissioning purposes were insufficient reason to extract identifiable data. Personal confidential data should only be disclosed with consent or under statute and “while the public interest can also provide a legal basis for disclosure it should not be relied upon for routine data flows. [footnote, p.63]”
What value is Independent Governance if it has no legislative teeth and can only advise? At the Health Select Committee today, he said she would be able to offer a view, and a number of parties will be able to express views & be ‘in agreement’. But I wonder who owns the ultimate final go/ no-go decision whether the pilot should progress to full roll-out?
9. Anonymous Sounds Safer
Feedback on the handout: The care.data notes need not only to be accurate but transparently truthful.
In my opinion, words are again misused words to indicate that data is anonymous. 1706204_datauses Whilst the intention of the merged CES output (GP records combined with HES files) may be that some users will see only pseudonymous data, the extracted and stored data is identifiable unless opted out. Name is held in the Personal Demographics Service. [5] This is one of the key communications messages I have taken up with HSCIC, NHS England, raised to the DH through my MP. To reassure the public by saying name is not stored, is deliberately deceptive unless it states simultaneously that it may already be held in the PDS and/or linked on demand.[6]
The Partridge Review [7] has dispensed with the notion that data is anonymous once and for all. Now it must be managed accordingly as identifiable data within Data Protection law and communications must stop misusing the anonymous concept to reassure the public.
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” ( George Orwell, 1984)
10. My own experience of engagement
The most interesting part of the day for me personally however, were the discussions which were unstructured and when we were free to talk amongst ourselves. Unfortunately, that was very little. The structure (at least in Basingstoke and appeared similar on screens elsewhere) was based around tables of about 10 which included at least two NHS England staff at each.
At the end of the morning session, before lunch, as the other participants had left the table, a Communications person and I got into conversation on the differences between care.data, the Summary care Record (SCR) and where Patient Online was to fit in our understanding of which data was used for which purpose.
We discussed that since care.data is only monthly retrospective extracts, not for real-time record access, it would not be a suitable basis for Patient Online access – care.data is for secondary uses. So, we moved onto the challenges of SCR access at local level and how it will be possible to offer everyone Patient online when so many have opted out of the Summary Care Record. We began to talk stats of SCR availability and actual use in hospitals.[8]
Sadly, the table facilitator appeared to decide at that point, that our discussion needed guidance and rushed to fetch a senior member of staff from Strategic systems. And rather than engaging me in what had been a very positive, pleasant two-way conversation, with the Comms person asking me questions and our exchange of views, the Strategic Head took over the conversation with her NHSE team member, effectively restricting further discussion, even with her body positioning and language. Being informed is OK, as long as its the ‘right’ information?
I don’t think that’s what patient engagement is about. The subject needs real, hard discussion, not just managed exchange using pre-designed template cards of topics that we are told we ‘should’ discuss. Perhaps ignorance is strength, but in my opinion, keeping Communications staff informed only ‘on message’ and not of the wider facts and concerns is shortsighted and does them, and patients, a disservice, but then again:
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” (George Orwell, 1984)
Within the other programmes of Patient Online and Patient Participation, care.data was a one hour session. It included the blue plasticine people short animation, a speech by Mr.Kelsey, a 15 minute table discussion on one pre-given theme from a range of four, reading aloud the summary of that discussion from each table within the room, one question per venue raised outside the room to the panel via video link in London, and their answers. Our discussion topics were brief, controlled and relatively superficial. It could have been a productive day’s workshop on only that.
The Open House took place simultaneously in four venues across England, Basingstoke, Leicester, York and London, connected through a live videolink at a number of points throughout the day. The recording in part, can be viewed here.
I attended the Basingstoke event, particularly keen to learn about national programmes such as care.data and hear about any updated plans for its rollout, to learn about patient online, and to meet the NHS England team in the South as well as other interested people like me. I hoped for some real public discussion and to hear others get their questions aired, shared and on the table for resolution.
I met one other ‘only’ patient and whilst I was kindly told by a further active PPG organiser, that I should never refer to myself as ‘only’ a patient, but you know what I mean. I’ve applied as a lay rep on our local CCG for an opening next year, until then, I’m learning as much as I can from others. Other attendees I met were those already more closely involved with NHS England in some way already. As NHS England staff, facilitators, representatives from Clinical Commissioning Groups, Patient Leaders and PPG leaders.
![Launching genomics, lifeboats, & care.data [part 2]](https://jenpersson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/rosetta_image-672x372.jpg)
![care.data should be like playing Chopin – or will it be all the right notes, but in the wrong order? [Part one]](https://jenpersson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/chopin-664x372.jpg)
