Data protection in patient records
🏥 Data Protection in Patient Records
Overview
Patient records contain highly sensitive personal data, including medical history, diagnosis, treatments, and sometimes genetic or psychological information. Protecting this data is crucial for:
Respecting patient privacy and dignity
Maintaining trust between patients and healthcare providers
Complying with legal frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S., and other national data protection laws.
Key Principles Under Data Protection Law for Patient Records
Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency: Patients must know how their data is processed.
Purpose limitation: Data collected only for specified, legitimate healthcare purposes.
Data minimization: Only necessary data should be collected and used.
Security: Robust measures must protect data from unauthorized access or breaches.
Confidentiality: Medical staff and third parties must maintain confidentiality.
Patients’ rights: Access, correction, deletion (where appropriate), and control over their data.
⚖️ Case Law and Investigations Related to Data Protection in Patient Records
1. Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González (2014)
(“Right to be forgotten” case)
Facts:
Although not a healthcare-specific case, it set a major precedent on personal data rights, including sensitive information.
Mario Costeja requested Google to remove links to outdated, irrelevant personal information about his financial situation.
Outcome & Relevance:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled individuals have the right to request deletion of personal data from search engines if the data is irrelevant or excessive.
This ruling has been applied in healthcare contexts where patients want sensitive medical information removed or hidden online.
Key Principle:
Right to erasure (Article 17 of GDPR) applies to sensitive health data, balancing public interest and privacy.
2. A v. W (2015) UK Case on Sharing Patient Data Without Consent
Facts:
A hospital shared a patient's psychiatric records with a private care provider without explicit consent.
The patient claimed breach of confidentiality and data protection law.
Court/Ombudsman Findings:
The hospital was found to have breached confidentiality and the Data Protection Act 1998 (pre-GDPR).
The court emphasized the necessity of informed consent for sharing health records unless overridden by strong legal justification.
Key Principle:
Patient records require explicit consent or clear legal authority before sharing.
Protects patient autonomy and privacy rights.
3. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) v. DeepMind (2017)
Facts:
Google’s DeepMind entered into an agreement with the Royal Free NHS Trust to access 1.6 million patient records for developing an app.
The ICO investigated whether the NHS Trust had lawfully shared patient data.
Findings:
ICO ruled the NHS Trust did not comply with data protection law because patients were not adequately informed, and consent was lacking.
Highlighted the importance of transparency and lawful basis under GDPR Article 6 and 9 (processing of special category data).
Outcome:
NHS Trust was required to improve data governance and patient information.
4. Case of Swedish Patient Data Breach (Swedish Data Protection Authority 2018)
Facts:
An unauthorized individual accessed sensitive patient records due to inadequate IT security.
The breach involved HIV-positive patients.
Decision:
The Swedish DPA fined the healthcare provider for failing to implement appropriate technical and organizational safeguards.
Under GDPR Articles 32 and 33, data controllers must notify breaches promptly.
Key Principle:
Strong data security is mandatory; failure leads to enforcement and penalties.
5. MediBridge v. Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) (2020)
Facts:
MediBridge, a private telemedicine company, was investigated for using patient records to target advertising for unrelated products.
Findings:
AEPD ruled it was an unlawful processing of sensitive health data for marketing purposes.
Emphasized GDPR’s strict rules on processing special category data and the purpose limitation principle.
Outcome:
MediBridge was fined, and ordered to delete unlawfully processed data.
6. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): Z v Finland (1997)
Facts:
The case concerned the unlawful disclosure of psychiatric patient records to third parties.
Plaintiff argued this violated her right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment:
The Court held that improper disclosure of sensitive medical data violated the right to privacy.
States have positive obligations to protect patient confidentiality.
Key Principle:
Protecting patient data is a fundamental human right under privacy laws.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Legal Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Spain v AEPD | EU (CJEU) | Right to be forgotten, data erasure | Right to erasure of irrelevant personal data, including health info | Established “right to be forgotten” applicable to health data |
| A v. W | UK | Sharing psychiatric data without consent | Consent requirement for sensitive health data sharing | Breach of confidentiality, data protection laws |
| ICO v DeepMind | UK | Lawfulness of patient data sharing for research | Transparency and lawful basis under GDPR | NHS Trust reprimanded, improved governance required |
| Swedish Patient Data Breach | Sweden | Security failure, unauthorized access | Data security obligations under GDPR | Fines imposed for inadequate safeguards |
| MediBridge v AEPD | Spain | Unlawful marketing using patient data | Purpose limitation and sensitive data protection | Company fined and ordered to delete data |
| Z v Finland | ECtHR | Unlawful disclosure of psychiatric data | Privacy as human right under Article 8 ECHR | Violation of privacy, state’s positive obligations |
Conclusion
Protecting patient records involves complex legal frameworks to ensure privacy, security, and patient autonomy. Courts and data protection authorities worldwide have established:
The need for explicit consent or clear legal basis for data sharing.
The importance of transparency about data processing.
The requirement of strong data security to prevent breaches.
The right to access, rectify, and erase patient data under certain conditions.
The fundamental nature of patient confidentiality as a human right.
This ensures trust in healthcare systems and compliance with evolving data protection laws globally.
RELATED Blog
0 comments