Anonymised Data and the Rule of Law
In: European data protection law review: EdpL, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 498-508
ISSN: 2364-284X
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: European data protection law review: EdpL, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 498-508
ISSN: 2364-284X
In: Hansen , J , Wilson , P , Verhoeven , E , Kroneman , M , Kirwan , M , Verheij , R & van Veen , E-B 2021 , Assessment of the EU Member States' rules on health data in the light of GDPR . European Union , Luxembourg . https://doi.org/10.2818/546193
In the context of the Single Framework Contract Chafea/2018/Health/03 between the EUHealthSupport Consortium and the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency (Chafea), a study was conducted with the objective to examine and present the EU Member States' rules governing the processing of health data in light of the GDPR, with the objective of highlighting possible differences and identifying elements that might affect the cross-border exchange of health data in the EU, and examining the potential for EU level action to support health data use and re-use. We distinguish between using health data for primary purposes (for treatment of the patient) and secondary purposes (for research, registries and management of the healthcare system). The study provides an evidence-based comparison of the state of play regarding health data governance within the EU. This will help to assess in what areas EU intervention might be needed and if so, through which types of measures, be it measures such as a Code of Conduct for data processing in the health area, which could be supported by an EU level implementing act or more direct legislative action, taking into account the particularities of the health systems in the Member States. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, consisting of the following elements: - Literature review to provide an overview of best practices, bottlenecks, policy options and possible solutions already identified in the literature. - Mapping legal and technical aspects of health data usage at national level to provide an overview of the differences among countries in legislation, regulation and governance models regarding processing health data. - In-depth case studies of national governance models for health data sharing. - Workshops held with MoH representatives, experts, stakeholder representatives and experts from national data protection offices. - Stakeholder Survey to cross validate and supplement the topics addressed and identified in the Member State legal and technical aspects mapping. The results of this study allow for a detailed assessment of possible elements at Member States/EU level that might affect the movement of health data across borders. It also identifies practices that could facilitate this exchange of data, as well as possible policy options for strategies in this area. Finally, we explored possibilities for sustainable governance structures for health data collection, processing and transfer, as well as measures empowering citizens to have more control of their own health data and to ensure portability and interoperability of these data.
BASE
BACKGROUND: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. METHODS: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. RESULTS: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IR
BASE
Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries. ; Peer reviewed
BASE
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. ; Peer reviewed
BASE