Tuesday 28 January 2020
midday to 2pm
Skipton House, London 107D, and Quarry House, Leeds 1N12A
|Kathy Hall, Chair (KH)||NHSX||Director of Technology and Data Strategy|
|Dame Fiona Caldicott (DFC)||National Data Guardian||National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care|
|Dawn Monaghan (DM)||NHSX||Head of IG Policy|
|Jackie Gray, Deputy Chair (JG)||NHS Digital||Executive Director of IG|
|Dr Vicky Chico (VC) (Deputy for JT)||Health Research Authority||Data Policy Advisor|
|Dr Robert Kyffin (RK)||Public Health England||Data & Information Policy and Partnerships Lead|
|Simon Richardson (SR)||Care Quality Commission||Information Rights Manager|
|Dr Tony Calland (TC)||Confidentiality Advisory Group||Chair of Confidentiality Advisory Group|
|Ian Hulme (IH)||Information Commissioner’s Office||Director of Regulatory Assurance|
|Rachel Merrett (RM)||NHSX||Head of Stakeholder Engagement|
|Martin Staples (MS)||NHSX||Data Sharing Privacy Specialist|
|Vicki Beresford (VB)||NHSX||IG Policy Manager|
|Sally Chapman (SC)||NHSX||Project Manager Data Sharing & Privacy Unit|
|Juliet Tizzard (JT)||Health Research Authority||Director of Policy|
Welcome and Introductions
KH welcomed members to the meeting, introducing Ian Hulme from ICO.
Apologies noted from Juliet Tizzard, introducing Dr Vicky Chico as the HRA representative.
KH confirmed the new appointment of JG as Deputy Chair, with KH as Chair.
Minutes and Actions from previous meeting.
Minutes - paper 01a
Agreed by Board members and signed off by Chair.
Actions - paper 01b
DM presented the Action Log, agreed by Board members.
JG gave an update regarding Article 40, advising there will be a joint workshop with the ICO to which Board members will be invited.
ToR - paper 01c
DM presented ToR paper.
DFC opened the discussion regarding the need for inclusion of clinical representation.
It was agreed that the Academy of Royal Colleges should be contacted for a representative to ensure clinical input on the Panel.
KH asked for suggestions for the new working title. Comments raised from SR to be more user friendly and to inclusive of Social Care. DFC proposed to remove the word Board.
JG raised a query of reporting lines, asking if the panel will continue to report to Matthew Gould.
All members agreed to the new working title of Health and Care Information Governance Panel, to be signed off by Comms.
Facilitating the simplification of Information Governance - paper 06
DM presented the paper, outlining the context which was that various stakeholders had expressed concern about a lack of understanding of how the draft joint statement, roundtable event and the NIGB fit together.
The paper was an attempt to clarify the position, it was for information rather than agreement.
DFC advised the Board that the joint statement is a long standing piece of work from back in October 2019 created as an attempt to provide reassurance and guidance.
DFC suggested it would still be helpful to have the background and statement within the paper.
IH advised that the ICO acknowledge there are issues within the system but the organisations are committed to working together.
KH confirmed that NHSX (Matthew Gould) would also sign the statement.
KH reminded the Board the Roundtable will take place March 4th.
Operational Process - Production of Information Governance Guidance - paper 02
RM presented the proposed process for producing IG guidance.
In relation to stage 1 which covered gathering, prioritising and allocating guidance, members supported the process and the establishment of a working group. Some members would not have the capacity to join the working group due to their size so there would be core and ad hoc members. In terms of gathering requests it was noted that these may also come from the ICO regulatory team. It was agreed that critical path programme guidance should be considered as one of the criteria during prioritisation.
Stage 2 covered the development of guidance once it has been allocated and the target audiences. RM advised that NHSx would provide the programme management of this process.
JG Requested that it would be good for the programme management to keep the Board updated on the progress of guidance.
DM advised that each guidance is one set of messages, tailored to meet the needs of different audiences. The panel agreed that the guidance should be clear, concise and accessible. DFC noted that in order to ensure transparency patients/service users should be a target audience by default.
SR requested the paper to be mindful of tailoring so as not to change the meaning.
KH agreed the default assumption that pieces of guidance should think of all 3 audiences when creating guidance.
Stage 3 covered the editorial process. RM agreed to take comments from the Board on the Style Guide.
Stage 4 covered sign off and publication. RM asked how the guidance would be branded, with a request for a less IG focused branding.
The Board agreed that the new working title would be checked with comms to confirm the branding and once approved to be published on the Portal.
KH advised that to translate this into a brand would need to be discussed further.
The Board signed off the Operational Process paper.
Questionnaire on Information Governance Guidance - Analysis of Results and Next Steps paper 04
VB presented the questionnaire paper, highlighting the strong themes that came through.
Discussion held regarding when the Portal will be going live, if there is an interim process in place with the suggestion of using checklists and to include Senior Boards and managers to the audience.
KH advised that clinical colleagues and ICO have similar checklists which would be of assistance.
JG requested if some templates could be produced e.g. Data Processing Agreements.
MS suggested using the templates that have been developed for the LHCRs.
Significant items of guidance
MS presented the Records Management Code of Practice paper, advising the RM Code of Practice document was developed some time ago, agreed with various stakeholders and subsequently published. The retention period has been under review and has gone from 10 - 100 years.
DM asked the Board if they agree that there should be a review of the retention period. The Board considered the timeline for the review of the retention period and whether it could be done quicker.
KH advised this is transitionary guidance, that has not gone out to working groups and endorsed. It was therefore agreed that prior to consultation it should be considered by the working group then back to the panel if further discussion is needed. The retention period of 100 years is to be reviewed, along with the frequency it is reviewed. Social Care to be included and to confirm if 2023 is the right time line with potential for an interim date.
DM presented the paper on Consent, as a draft, advising this to be brought through as a priority.
KH asked all to have comments to feed into the Working Group as a priority.
Routine items of guidance - paper 05
DM presented the paper with discussion held agreeing the need to note deadlines and that the log would be presented to the Panel each month.
Risk register - paper 07
DM presented the paper.
Date of next meeting March 11th 2020.