Over recent years in the UK there has been growing interest in the potential for routinely collected NHS (National Health Service) patient data to be used for secondary purposes, facilitated by the potential of increasingly sophisticated electronic databases. This article is based on a critically reflective literature review which analyses the key debates pertaining to this issue. The work arose in the context of a programme of research concerning routine patient data use in neonatal care. The article includes analysis of commentary (opinion and ethical inquiry) as well as empirically derived claims. It aims to deconstruct the knowledge assumptions on which relevant research studies have been based or are proposed and it also incorporates ontological position and moral argument. Results are presented according to three predominant debates: the prevailing claim that all health research benefits civic society; the varieties of informed consent and choices open to patients regarding secondary uses of their data; and the ‘rights and responsibilities’ of patients when it comes to their data being used for research purposes. It examines the relevance of these themes specifically to the neonatal context and the implications for our own research, concluding that employing an alternative ethical model to the traditional professional one might be useful in order to provide a further perspective on the issue.
Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) (2006) Personal Data for Public Good. London: The Academy of Medical Sciences.
2.
Academy of Medical Sciences (2011) A New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research. London: The Academy of Medical Sciences.
3.
Al-ShahiRWarlowC (2000) Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit: Overprotection could damage the public interest. British Medical Journal321(7268): 1031–1032.
4.
BabbieEBenaquistoL (2002) Fundamentals of Social Research. Ontario: Thomas Nelson.
5.
BakerRShielsCStevensonKFraserRStoneM (2000) What proportion of patients refuse consent to data collection from their records for research purposes?British Journal of General Practice50(457): 655–656.
6.
BanksS (2008) Critical commentary: Social work ethics. British Journal of Social Work38(6): 1238–1249.
7.
BlackN (2003) Secondary use of personal data for health and health services research: Why identifiable data are essential. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy8(1): 36–40.
8.
BraudeHD (2009) Clinical intuition versus statistics: Different modes of tacit knowledge in clinical epidemiology and evidence-based medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics30(3): 181–198.
9.
BrownLParkerMDixon-WoodsM (2008) Whose interest? British newspaper reporting of use of medical records for research. Journal of Health Service Research Policy13(3): 140–145.
10.
CaytonHDenegriS (2003) Is what’s mine my own?Journal of Health Service Research Policy8(1): 33–35.
11.
ChalmersJMuirR (2003) Patient privacy and confidentiality. British Medical Journal326(7392): 725–726.
12.
CliffordD (2002) Resolving uncertainties? The contribution of some recent feminist ethical theory to the social professions. European Journal of Social Work5(1): 31–41.
13.
Department of Health (DoH) (2009) Toolkit for High-Quality Neonatal Services. London: Department of Health.
14.
Department of Health (DoH) (2010) Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: The Stationery Office.
GilliganC (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
HartC (1998) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. London: SAGE and Open University.
19.
HaynesCLCookGAJonesMA (2007) Legal and ethical considerations in processing patient-identifiable data without patient consent: Lessons learnt from developing a disease register. Journal of Medical Ethics33(5): 302–307.
20.
HigginsJ (2003) The Patient Information Advisory Group and the use of patient-identifiable data. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy8(1): 8–11.
21.
IversenALiddellKFearNHotopfMWesselyS (2006) Consent, confidentiality, and the Data Protection Act. British Medical Journal332(7534): 165–169.
22.
KuhlmannE (2006) Traces of doubt and sources of trust: Health professions in an uncertain society. Current Sociology54(4): 607–620.
23.
LedwithM (2001) Community work as critical pedagogy: Re-envisioning Freire and Gramsci. Community Development Journal36(3): 171–182.
24.
LevittMWeldonS (2005) A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Critical Public Health15(4): 311–321.
25.
LewisB (2006) Medical professionals and the discourse of professionalism: Teaching implications. In: WearDAultmanJM (eds) Professionalism in Medicine: Critical Perspectives. USA: Springer, 149–164.
26.
LowranceWW (2002) Learning from Experience: Privacy and the Secondary Use of Data in Health Research. 28November. London: The Nuffield Trust.
27.
McBeathGWebbSA (2002) Virtue ethics and social work: Being lucky, realistic, and not doing one’s duty. British Journal of Social Work32(8): 1015–1036.
28.
McKinneyPJonesSParslowR. (2005) A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database. British Medical Journal330(7496): 877–879.
29.
MetcalfeCMartinRMNobleS. (2008) Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: Encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. Journal of Medical Ethics34(1): 37–40.
30.
MontgomeryJ (2005) Personal information in the National Health Service: The demise or rise of patient interests? In: LaceS (ed.) The Glass Consumer: Life in a Surveillance Society. Bristol: The Policy Press, 187–206.
31.
NairKWilliamsonDHolbrookAKeshavjeeK (2004) Patients’ consent preferences regarding the use of their health information for research purposes: A qualitative study. Journal of Health Service Research Policy9(1): 23–27.
32.
NettletonS (1996) Women and the new paradigm of health and medicine. Critical Social Policy16(48): 33–53.
33.
NHS Information Authority (NHSIA) in conjunction with the Consumers’ Association and Health Which? (2002) Share with Care! People’s Views on Consent and Confidentiality of Patient Information. Birmingham: NHSIA.
34.
O’BrienJChantlerC (2003) Confidentiality and the duties of care. Journal of Medical Ethics29(1): 36–40.
35.
OrmeJ (2002) Social work: Gender, care and justice. British Journal of Social Work32(6): 799–814.
36.
POPPY (Parents of Premature babies Project) (2009) Family-Centred Care in Neonatal Units: A Summary of Research Results and Recommendations from the POPPY Project. London: NCT.
37.
RifeMC (2010) Ethos, pathos, logos, kairos: Using a rhetorical heuristic to mediate digital-survey recruitment strategies. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication53(3): 260–277.
38.
ShirleyJLPadgettSM (2006) An analysis of the discourse of professionalism. In: WearDAultmanJM (eds) Professionalism in Medicine: Critical Perspectives. USA: Springer, 25–42.
39.
SmithC (2005) Understanding trust and confidence: Two paradigms and their significance for health and social care. Journal of Applied Philosophy22(3): 299–316.
40.
SouhamiR (2006) Governance of research that uses identifiable personal data. British Medical Journal333(7563): 315–316.
41.
StroblJCaveEWalleyT (2000) Data protection legislation: Interpretation and barriers to research. British Medical Journal321(7265): 890–892.
42.
UKCRC Advisory Group to Connecting for Health (2007) Report of the Research Simulations. London: UKCRC.
43.
VerityCNichollA (2002) Consent, confidentiality, and the threat to public health surveillance. British Medical Journal324(7347): 1210–1213.
44.
WebbSAMcBeathGB (1989) A political critique of Kantian ethics in social work. British Journal of Social Work19(1): 491–506.
YoungASkippACarrGTattersallHHuntR (2006) Informed choice and deaf children: Underpinning concepts and enduring challenges. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education11(3): 322–336.
