Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Research ArticleResearch

Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system

Need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards

Jyoti A. Kotecha, Donna Manca, Anita Lambert-Lanning, Karim Keshavjee, Neil Drummond, Marshall Godwin, Michelle Greiver, Wayne Putnam, Marie-Thérèse Lussier and Richard Birtwhistle
Canadian Family Physician October 2011, 57 (10) 1165-1173;
Jyoti A. Kotecha
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jyoti.kotecha@queensu.ca
Donna Manca
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anita Lambert-Lanning
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karim Keshavjee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neil Drummond
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marshall Godwin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Greiver
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wayne Putnam
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie-Thérèse Lussier
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Birtwhistle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Re: "Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system" Kotecha, et al., 57: 1165-1173
    Jyoti A. Kotecha
    Published on: 05 December 2011
  • William J. Sullivan
    Published on: 24 November 2011
  • Published on: (5 December 2011)
    Re: "Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system" Kotecha, et al., 57: 1165-1173
    • Jyoti A. Kotecha , Adjunct Lecturer

    We appreciate William Sullivan's well thought out response to our article and fully support the need for more expertise and support to the IREBs, which in turn would facilitate the process. The key message we attempted to articulate was that IREBs are made up of dedicated individuals who are often participating on these boards in addition to their regular academic duties, and that they need to be better supported to be...

    Show More

    We appreciate William Sullivan's well thought out response to our article and fully support the need for more expertise and support to the IREBs, which in turn would facilitate the process. The key message we attempted to articulate was that IREBs are made up of dedicated individuals who are often participating on these boards in addition to their regular academic duties, and that they need to be better supported to be able to interpret complex institutional, local, provincial, and national privacy and ethics standards and policy. We also understand that IREBs may deal with many incomplete applications that have not thought out or addressed ethical and privacy issues.

    Mr. Sullivan indicates that researchers will have problems with many IREBs if they fail to fairly address issues before submitting applications. Our concerns were that despite carefully preparing and addressing issues before submitting our applications we encountered significant variation and delay in our pan-Canadian REB submissions, and that this was not because IREBs were either slow or lacked expertise, but that the policies themselves are so complex that interpretation is an issue.

    Due to word limitations for publication and the need to focus our paper, we were not able to provide as many details which may have contributed to either misunderstanding or wrongful conclusions by Mr. Sullivan. Therefore, we welcome this opportunity to fill in some of the gaps illustrated in Mr. Sullivan's letter.

    1) "REBs should not simply accept that "de-identified information is enough."

    We agree with this wholeheartedly and in our IREB submissions we submitted research or hardware agreements with the custodians, confidentiality agreements, standard operating procedures, privacy codes of conduct and processes to mitigate the risks of collecting de-identified data including the first three digits of the postal code. Policy and procedures were developed to mitigate the risks of re-identification such as masking fields that contained less than 5 items.

    2) CPCSSN does not have the patients' identifying information. The information extracted from the Electronic Medical Record is stripped of identifiers. The CPCSSN key, which does contain patient identifiers, is kept within the secure practice environment, that is, it is kept by the custodian of the data (the physician).

    3) When we state, "There's always a trade off between utility and security, therefore, a small risk of identification" we are describing the acceptable risks needed for surveillance. That is, explicit consent is not useful for surveillance projects, instead, we used "social contract consent" where people are informed generally about the research.[1] Social contract consent is acceptable in low risk situations such as extracting de-identified health data.[1] The benefits of this type of consent outweigh the risks with surveillance studies using de-identified data. Obtaining informed consent creates research bias in observational studies.[2] For the purposes of this project social contract consent was required to obtain a representative sample. The CPCSSN, provides information to all patients at participating practices, through posters, information brochures, and provides contact details of the research team, and IREB contacts in each location that patients may contact if they have issues or wish to "opt-out" and request that their information be withdrawn from the project.

    4) In response to the concern that not obtaining informed consent does not show enough "respect" for a patient's privacy. The TCPS2 requires REBs as well as those doing research with human data to be in compliance with applicable legislation as it interprets the TCPS2 recommendations. In that regard, CPCSSN's demonstration of "respect" for data subjects is apparent in a number of ways, commencing with the implementation of organizational, physical and technological safeguards for the CPCSSN data that is de-identified within the practice environment. These safeguards are described in our paper. In addition, CPCSSN is providing custodians (who hold the legal responsibility for ensuring privacy in their handling of their patient's personal health information is in compliance with applicable privacy legislation) with substantial information and support (including contact information for CPCSSN Research and Privacy Ethics Officer). The process described in the article (albeit generally) was consistent with the applicable legislation as it applies in each participating province.

    [1] Singleton P, Wadsworth M. Consent for the use of personal medical data in research. BMJ 2006;333:255-8. [2] Kho ME, Duffett M, Willison DJ, Cook DJ, Brouwers MC. Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. BMJ 2009;338:b866.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (24 November 2011)
    • William J. Sullivan, Lawyer
    • Other Contributors:

    As a lawyer and long time member of a REB in Vancouver, I read with interest the article by Kotecha et al. (1) and Dr. Upshur's well thought out response (2). Based on my experience it may be helpful to researchers to at least know why proposals are questioned by REBs and why there can be delays before approval. This letter reflects my opinion only and not those of my REB. It is based on their article and not the orig...

    Show More

    As a lawyer and long time member of a REB in Vancouver, I read with interest the article by Kotecha et al. (1) and Dr. Upshur's well thought out response (2). Based on my experience it may be helpful to researchers to at least know why proposals are questioned by REBs and why there can be delays before approval. This letter reflects my opinion only and not those of my REB. It is based on their article and not the original application and supporting material.

    I sympathize with Kotecha et al.(1) in regard to delays based on infrequent meetings of a REB. Hours are spent by the responsible Board members in scrutinizing their assigned research proposals for reporting to the Board. Hours are spent in the time the Board spends discussing the research proposals. REBs are usually made up of volunteers (sometimes a modest honorarium is paid which when divided by the hours invested usually results in an amount per hour somewhat equivalent to the minimum wage). As Dr. Upshur points out, there is difficulty in getting experienced physicians involved in research to sit on REBs. If the expertise to review the proposed research cannot be found on the Board, then the study is normally referred out to an expert, which adds to the delay.

    A starting point in research. as in clinical medicine, is that there must be respect for the subject. Mason and Laurie (3) said in talking about consent, "It must be remembered, however, that consent itself is a means to an end and that the real aim is to respect persons and their interests." The TCPS2 puts it as "respect for human dignity" as the "underlying value" of the TCPS "since its inception". (4) When the TCPS2 talks about "respect for persons" it includes those subjects whose data are "used in research" (4). This requirement of "respect" I find is sometimes forgotten or only paid lip service by researchers. The primary obligation of the REB in both law and ethics is to the subject. That obligation requires the proposed research be vetted from whether or not it is flawed in any way, to whether it satisfies the legal and ethical requirements of respect for the subject. Simply satisfying the legal requirements may not satisfy the ethical requirements.

    I believe Kotecha et al. (1) have their quarrel with the REBs based on what they refer to as "inconsistent interpretations and application of privacy and ethical issues" (certainly in regard to the applicability of various privacy legislation there will be differences between provinces as the legislation will differ to some extent between each province). Let me take a few of their points in their article and explain my concerns which I expect reflect the same concerns of some of the other REBs and why researchers will have problems with many REBs if they fail to fairly address these issues before submitting their applications.

    Kotecha et al. (1) take comfort in that the health information of the patient is "de-identified"1. TCPS2 says that there are risks of re- identification and both researchers and REBs "should be vigilant in their efforts to recognize and reduce these risks"4. REBs should not simply accept the "de-identified" information as enough to satisfy them but should look at all aspects of the same. Here the data base has the "first three digits of their postal codes together with the de-identified health information". TCPS2 expresses risk where a data site "contains information about a population of small geographical area or about individuals with unique characteristics" (4). So my concern on looking at what would have been the application on which the article is based is whether, given the particular disease the description of the patient's particular health information and the partial postal code, a researcher with that limited information could link it to a particular patient. If that were so I would want assurances and protection in place that that could not happen.

    I note the assigned patient number "is copied on to a CPCSSN key" which contains all the patient's personal and identifying information (1). It would appear that CPCSSN at some point has that identifying information unless it is done by the physician who is dealing with the patient and the article does not say in that regard one way or the other, other than the reference to the key "resides" at the office of the physician or what is referred to as the "local EMR server". This would also give me concern and I would want assurances in regard to there being no access by the data base people or the researchers to the code and that they had no access to the "local EMR server" (I appreciate that some of my concerns may have been covered in the material submitted to the various REBs as I am relying solely on the article). TCPS2 in its definition of "Coded Information" recognizes that identifiers are removed from the information and replaced with a code, but depending on as they say "access to the code it may be possible to re-identify specific participants" (4). This is particularly so in regard to linkage to other data sets. I would want to know why (if in fact they do not) the physician looking after the patient could not put the identifying number on the information removing the patient's identifiers before it being sent to the data base.

    When a researcher says, "There's always a trade off between utility and security, therefore, and a small risk of identification" (1) my antenna go up. Ethically, why should the subject's confidentiality ever be put at risk when the subject has not consented to the information being released? To me the quote does not show respect for the subject.

    What would also concern me is that the physician dealing with the patient displays "information to inform patients about the CPCSSN project and to explain the patient's information will be included unless they request otherwise" (1). This tells me that the physicians can try to get informed consent from their patients. It is therefore up to the researcher to satisfy the REB that to do so will, as Kotecha et al put it, result "in a biased local sample data set not sufficiently representative for the purpose of health surveillance research"1 (as required by Article 3.7(c) of TCPS2) (4). A simple statement by the researcher that this happens is not sufficient. I would want details. Remember the basic requirement in research is respect for the subject. If my REB is satisfied that it is appropriate to waive the requirement of consent, I would also want assurances that the physician talks to each patient about the research and risks (and did not rely just on the printed material), answers any questions the patient might have and makes it clear that the patient can opt out without it adversely affecting the relationship between the patient and the physician. I expect that the REB who originally required informed consent based that requirement on the particular circumstances of what is disclosed in the first quote in this paragraph.

    I agree with Dr. Upshur that researchers should serve on REBs. They would then better understand the mandate of the REB in the protection of the subject, and from that understanding would be better able to draw their proposed research proposals which will satisfy the REB. The concerns I have raised all go to respect for the subject and can be addressed by the researchers in preparing their research proposal. If these concerns are not addressed then there will be delays in the approval of that proposal.

    Kotecha et al. want a "specialized national centralized IREB" for "multi-site studies relating to population health research"1 (which ignores the possible different legal requirements in different provinces). One must be careful about what one wishes for. Assuming that such a board was created and was truly independent (and met often enough to avoid undue delay) then based on the mandate required of the board by TCPS2, it may well want the same or more requirements and put the same questions as some of the local REBs did in regard to Kotecha et al.'s application.

    References: 1. Kotecha, J.A., et al. Ethics and Privacy Issues of the Practice-Based Surveillance System, Canadian Family Physician, October 2011; 57:1165-1173

    2. Upshur, REG. Commentary, Ask not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REB, Canadian Family Physician, October 2011; 57:1113-4.

    3. Mason, J.K. and Laurie, G.T. Mason and McCall Smith's Law and Medical Ethics, 8th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011, 638

    4. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. 2nd ed. Ottawa, ON: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; 2010

    Conflict of Interest:

    Member, UBC Clinical Research Ethics Board

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 57 (10)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 57, Issue 10
1 Oct 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system
Jyoti A. Kotecha, Donna Manca, Anita Lambert-Lanning, Karim Keshavjee, Neil Drummond, Marshall Godwin, Michelle Greiver, Wayne Putnam, Marie-Thérèse Lussier, Richard Birtwhistle
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2011, 57 (10) 1165-1173;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system
Jyoti A. Kotecha, Donna Manca, Anita Lambert-Lanning, Karim Keshavjee, Neil Drummond, Marshall Godwin, Michelle Greiver, Wayne Putnam, Marie-Thérèse Lussier, Richard Birtwhistle
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2011, 57 (10) 1165-1173;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • BACKGROUND
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Réseau canadien de surveillance sentinelle en soins primaires
  • Celebrating family medicine research
  • Célébrer la recherche en médecine familiale
  • Ask not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REB
  • Ne demandez pas ce que votre CER peut faire pour vous, mais bien ce que vous pouvez faire pour votre CER
  • Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Refutation: Les dossiers medicaux electroniques ameliorent-ils la qualite des soins?: Non
  • Rebuttal: Do electronic medical records improve quality of care?: No
  • Using EMR data to evaluate a physician-developed lifestyle plan for obese patients in primary care
  • Practice recruitment
  • Recrutement de pratiques
  • Navigating REBs
  • Respect for the subject paramount
  • Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network: A developing resource for family medicine and public health
  • Celebrer la recherche en medecine familiale
  • Ne demandez pas ce que votre CER peut faire pour vous, mais bien ce que vous pouvez faire pour votre CER
  • Reseau canadien de surveillance sentinelle en soins primaires: Une ressource en evolution pour la medecine familiale et la sante publique
  • Celebrating family medicine research
  • Ask not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REB
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of a physician assistant on quality and efficiency metrics in an emergency department
  • Estimation of unregistered patients who left without being seen
  • Patients eligible and referred for bariatric surgery in southeastern Ontario
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Collection française
    • Résumés de recherche

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire