ICO: NHS data security breaches are just 'plain daft'
As bad as gossiping about patients down the pub, says watchdog
Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software
NHS staff should be more aware of data security risks as patient confidentiality "is at the heart of what they do", Jonathan Bamford, head of strategic liaison at the Information Commissioner's Office has said.
Speaking at an event on healthcare efficiency, he said that he was confounded by the disconnect between staff awareness on the subject and the number of breaches that occur in the health service.
"The conundrum for me is that those very same people who wouldn't dream of chatting about patient information at Costa Coffee or down the curry house on a Friday evening, or down the Coach and Horses, are the very same people who are losing memory sticks with lots of information on it, who are doing daft things with people's personal information," Bamford, to the Healthcare Efficiency Through Technology event in London.
"Why is there that disconnect there? Why have things fallen down in that way?" he asked. "Because I don't believe that any of those people who are involved in those security blunders are ill informed in terms of the need to look after people's information, or information that is entrusted to them."
He used the Dartford and Gravesham trust's data security issues as an example of lax data security awareness within the NHS. The ICO recently took action against the trust after it mistakenly destroyed 10,000 health records that were left in a destruction room, because the archiving room was full. He said that these kind of breaches occur because people find "work-arounds" such as someone logging into a computer and then allowing colleagues to use the same access.
Bamford explained that it was important for the NHS to realise that security was not all about technical measures, but about organisational changes as well. "It's about standards that are set by organisations, it's about what people are told. You have to ensure the reliability of staff that have access to information and data," he added.
He said that there are lots of issues that need to be addressed, but stressed that the situation could be improved.
"Information governance is at the heart of this and there are lots of lessons we can learn from the data losses over the years. We're really great supporters of the information governance (IG) toolkit and the fact there is a lot of effort put into that, but there has to be something which is meaningful that people embrace in their daily lives, in their professional lives when they go around and use personal information, that's very very important," said Bamford.
Fiona Caldicott, chair of the National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care, also spoke at the event, acknowledging that some within the NHS had experienced problems with the IG toolkit due to its complexity.
She said that the board plans to support and train people who are having difficulties with understanding the system. She also disclosed that the organisation, which is set to become part of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2013 under proposals in the health and social care bill, was working on transitional guidance to help healthcare professionals with the changes to the NHS.
Caldicott said that NIGB will place ideas online in the next few weeks. "What we would like to do is publish it and then be very open to responses from the readership and those that wish to use it for more amendments," she said.
She also spoke of an emerging contradiction between health secretary Andrew Lansley's "mantra" of 'no decision about me, without me' and the delivery of good quality information governance.
"That is not a simple concept, and I think one of the things we have to think about is how the issues of information governance fit with that statement and how members of the public understand what we're doing with their data," said Caldicott, adding that it was important with information to give them patients "the assurance that this is fully safeguarded within the services with which they present".
This article was originally published at Guardian Government Computing.
Guardian Government Computing is a business division of Guardian Professional, and covers the latest news and analysis of public sector technology. For updates on public sector IT, join the Government Computing Network here.
COMMENTS
I can answer that
"Why is there that disconnect there? Why have things fallen down in that way?"
People take data protection trivially, because the penalties for not taking it seriously are trivial.
You can bet your life that if the penalties ranged from disciplinary tribunals, dismissal and jail time, people would immediately start taking it seriously.
The ICO are a bunch of useless toothless wimps. They talk big but with every breach they chicken out of imposing the penalties that they have the power to use. Every time it happens they slap a few wrists and make the organisations concerned promise not to do it again.
They need to penalise properly all organisations who break the DPA. And no I don't buy the fact that stiffer penalties would only encourage organisations to cover up data breaches. That is a stupid argument, you could use it to justify leniency in almost any law. All you need to do is make the penalty for failing to report a data breach much stiffer than those for the breach.
Increasing the penalties won't help
It will just make people more likely to cover up a data security incident

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider