NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?

Introduction Since its’ inception in 2015, the NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) has approved over 200 applications for access to data. The PBPP are accountable to the public and must demonstrate their assessment of applications for data use in terms of envisaged public benefit a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Carole Morris, Ashley Grey
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Swansea University 2018-08-01
Series:International Journal of Population Data Science
Online Access:https://ijpds.org/article/view/785
id doaj-5336df2faa8143b3a513229eb89e0420
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5336df2faa8143b3a513229eb89e04202020-11-24T23:11:37ZengSwansea UniversityInternational Journal of Population Data Science2399-49082018-08-013410.23889/ijpds.v3i4.785785NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?Carole Morris0Ashley Grey1National Services Scotland, NHS ScotlandNational Services Scotland, NHS Scotland Introduction Since its’ inception in 2015, the NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) has approved over 200 applications for access to data. The PBPP are accountable to the public and must demonstrate their assessment of applications for data use in terms of envisaged public benefit and potential privacy risks. Objectives and Approach In 2017 the first annual audit took place. The purpose of the audit exercise was twofold; establish that the governance process is robust and that proportionate governance criteria are the correct measurement tool. The full PBPP committee reviewed a random selection of 10 applications approved at Tier 1 between January 2016 and December 2016. Committee members were split into groups and sent paperwork relating to the application. A review record was completed covering the questions within the proportionate governance criteria. Review records were sent to the PBPP Panel Manager for collation and an audit record compiled for each application. Results Applications were identified where a discrepancy existed between the Tier 1 decision and the PBPP Committee audit review. These audit records were tabled for discussion at a workshop involving a subgroup of PBPP Committee and Tier 1 panel members. From the ten applications that were randomly selected, six were consistently reviewed by both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Committee with no referral points identified from the either Tier. 4 were identified for discussion in a workshop including representatives from both Tiers. During the discussion it was agreed that 2 out of the 4 should have triggered a further review by Tier 2 but that the decision to approve all 4 applications would have remained. Conclusion/Implications This suggests that both Tiers have a sound understanding of the proportionate governance criteria and that for the majority of applications this is being interpreted uniformly and that the audit process is required to ensure this is maintained going forward. https://ijpds.org/article/view/785
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Carole Morris
Ashley Grey
spellingShingle Carole Morris
Ashley Grey
NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
International Journal of Population Data Science
author_facet Carole Morris
Ashley Grey
author_sort Carole Morris
title NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
title_short NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
title_full NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
title_fullStr NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
title_full_unstemmed NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) – Does a Proportionate Governance Review Work?
title_sort nhs scotland public benefit and privacy panel (pbpp) – does a proportionate governance review work?
publisher Swansea University
series International Journal of Population Data Science
issn 2399-4908
publishDate 2018-08-01
description Introduction Since its’ inception in 2015, the NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP) has approved over 200 applications for access to data. The PBPP are accountable to the public and must demonstrate their assessment of applications for data use in terms of envisaged public benefit and potential privacy risks. Objectives and Approach In 2017 the first annual audit took place. The purpose of the audit exercise was twofold; establish that the governance process is robust and that proportionate governance criteria are the correct measurement tool. The full PBPP committee reviewed a random selection of 10 applications approved at Tier 1 between January 2016 and December 2016. Committee members were split into groups and sent paperwork relating to the application. A review record was completed covering the questions within the proportionate governance criteria. Review records were sent to the PBPP Panel Manager for collation and an audit record compiled for each application. Results Applications were identified where a discrepancy existed between the Tier 1 decision and the PBPP Committee audit review. These audit records were tabled for discussion at a workshop involving a subgroup of PBPP Committee and Tier 1 panel members. From the ten applications that were randomly selected, six were consistently reviewed by both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Committee with no referral points identified from the either Tier. 4 were identified for discussion in a workshop including representatives from both Tiers. During the discussion it was agreed that 2 out of the 4 should have triggered a further review by Tier 2 but that the decision to approve all 4 applications would have remained. Conclusion/Implications This suggests that both Tiers have a sound understanding of the proportionate governance criteria and that for the majority of applications this is being interpreted uniformly and that the audit process is required to ensure this is maintained going forward.
url https://ijpds.org/article/view/785
work_keys_str_mv AT carolemorris nhsscotlandpublicbenefitandprivacypanelpbppdoesaproportionategovernancereviewwork
AT ashleygrey nhsscotlandpublicbenefitandprivacypanelpbppdoesaproportionategovernancereviewwork
_version_ 1725603593516482560