Data protection, information governance and the potential erosion of ethnographic methods in health care?
data protection
ethnography
health services research
research governance
Journal
Sociology of health & illness
ISSN: 1467-9566
Titre abrégé: Sociol Health Illn
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8205036
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
10
2021
received:
19
05
2021
accepted:
02
11
2021
pubmed:
24
11
2021
medline:
11
3
2022
entrez:
23
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With the most recent developments to the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) introduced in May 2018, the resulting legislation meant a new set of considerations for study approvers and health-care researchers. Compared with previous legislation in the UK (The Data Protection Act, 1998), it introduced more extensive and directive principles, requiring anybody 'processing' personal data to specifically define how this data will be obtained, stored, used and destroyed. Importantly, it also emphasised the principle of accountability, which meant that data controllers and processors could no longer just state that they planned to adhere to lawful data protection principles, they also had to demonstrate compliance. New questions and concerns around accountability now appear to have increased levels of scrutiny in all areas of information governance (IG), especially with regards to processing confidential patient information. This article explores our experiences of gaining required ethical and regulatory approvals for an ethnographic study in a UK health-care setting, the implications that the common law duty of confidentiality had for this research, and the ways in which IG challenges were overcome. The purpose of this article was to equip researchers embarking on similar projects to be able to navigate the potentially problematic and complex journey to approval.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34811764
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13408
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
211-217Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Versus Arthritis
ID : 22433
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Versus Arthritis
ID : 20380
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL (SHIL).
Références
Bosk, C. L., & De Vries, R. G. (2004). Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. The Annals of the American Academy, 595, 249-263.
Everri, M., Heitmayer, M., Yamin-Slotkus, P., & Lahlou, S. (2020). Ethical challenges of using video for qualitative research and ethnography. In T. Lähdesmäki (Ed.), Challenges and solutions in ethnographic research: Ethnography with a twist (1st ed., pp. 68-83). Routledge.
Farre, A., Wood, V., McDonagh, J. E., Parr, J. R., Reape, D., & Rapley, T. (2016). Health professionals’ and managers’ definitions of developmentally appropriate healthcare for young people: conceptual dimensions and embedded controversies. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 101(7), 628-633.
General Medical Council (2019). Disclosing patients’ personal information: A framework.
Goodyear-Smith, F., Jackson, C., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). Co-design and implementation research: Challenges and solutions for ethics committees. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(78), 1-5.
Health Research Authority (2020). Do I need NHS REC review?. 30-11-2020. Ref Type: Online Source.
Lee, R. R., Rashid, A., Thomson, W., & Cordingley, L. (2020). ‘Reluctant to assess pain’: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ beliefs about the role of pain in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research, 72(1), 69-77.
Librett, M., & Perrone, D. (2010). Apples and oranges: Ethnography and the IRB. Qualitative Research, 10(6), 729-747.
Mapedzahama, V., & Dune, T. (2017). A clash of paradigms? Ethnography and ethics approval. SAGE Open, 1, 8.
Murphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2223-2234.
Parry, R., Pino, M., Faull, C., & Feathers, L. (2016). Acceptability and design of video-based research on healthcare communication: Evidence and recommendations. Patient Education and Counseling, 99, 1271-1284.
Ranieri, V., Stynes, H., & Kennedy, E. (2020). To CAG or not to CAG? Difficulties in determining submission to the confidentiality advisory group: A commentary. Research Ethics, 17(1), 120-124.
Rapley, T., Farre, A., Parr, J. R., Wood, V. J., Reape, D., Dovey-Pearce, G., & McDonagh, J. (2019). Can we normalise developmentally appropriate health care for young people in UK hospital settings? An ethnographic study. British Medical Journal Open, 9(9), e029107.
Savage, J. (2000). Ethnography and health care. BMJ, 321(7273), 1400-1402.
The Caldicott Committee (1997). Report on the review of patient identifiable information.
The National Health Service (2006). The National Health Service Act. 21-4-2021. Ref Type: Online Source.