Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Data protection-compliant broad consent for secondary use of health care data and human biosamples for (bio)medical research: Towards a new German national standard.
Zenker, Sven; Strech, Daniel; Ihrig, Kristina; Jahns, Roland; Müller, Gabriele; Schickhardt, Christoph; Schmidt, Georg; Speer, Ronald; Winkler, Eva; von Kielmansegg, Sebastian Graf; Drepper, Johannes.
Affiliation
  • Zenker S; Staff Unit for Scientific & Medical Technology Development & Coordination (MWTek), Commercial Directorate, Institute for Medical Biometry, Informatics & Epidemiology, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Venusbergcampus 1, 53127 Bonn, German
  • Strech D; QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
  • Ihrig K; Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Frankfurt/Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Jahns R; Interdisciplinary Bank of Biomaterials and Data Würzburg (ibdw), University and University Hospital of Würzburg, Building A8/A9, Straubmühlweg 2a, 97078 Würzburg, Germany.
  • Müller G; Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus and Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
  • Schickhardt C; Section of Translational Medical Ethics, National Center for Tumor Diseases, German Cancer Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Schmidt G; Department of Internal Medicine 1, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, German Centre for Cardiovascular Research partner site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany.
  • Speer R; LIFE - Leipzig Research Center for Civilization Diseases, Medical Faculty, Leipzig University, Philipp-Rosenthal-Straße 27, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
  • Winkler E; Section for Translational Medical Ethics, Dept Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 460, 69121 Heidelberg.
  • von Kielmansegg SG; Chair of Public Law and Medical Law, Kiel University, Leibnizstraße 2, 24118 Kiel, Germany.
  • Drepper J; TMF - Technology, Methods, and Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research, Charlottenstrasse 42, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
J Biomed Inform ; 131: 104096, 2022 07.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35643273
BACKGROUND: The secondary use of deidentified but not anonymized patient data is a promising approach for enabling precision medicine and learning health care systems. In most national jurisdictions (e.g., in Europe), this type of secondary use requires patient consent. While various ethical, legal, and technical analyses have stressed the opportunities and challenges for different types of consent over the past decade, no country has yet established a national consent standard accepted by the relevant authorities. METHODS: A working group of the national Medical Informatics Initiative in Germany conducted a requirements analysis and developed a GDPR-compliant broad consent standard. The development included consensus procedures within the Medical Informatics Initiative, a documented consultation process with all relevant stakeholder groups and authorities, and the ultimate submission for approval via the national data protection authorities. RESULTS: This paper presents the broad consent text together with a guidance document on mandatory safeguards for broad consent implementation. The mandatory safeguards comprise i) independent review of individual research projects, ii) organizational measures to protect patients from involuntary disclosure of protected information, and iii) comprehensive information for patients and public transparency. This paper further describes the key issues discussed with the relevant authorities, especially the position on additional or alternative consent approaches such as dynamic consent. DISCUSSION: Both the resulting broad consent text and the national consensus process are relevant for similar activities internationally. A key challenge of aligning consent documents with the various stakeholders was explaining and justifying the decision to use broad consent and the decision against using alternative models such as dynamic consent. Public transparency for all secondary use projects and their results emerged as a key factor in this justification. While currently largely limited to academic medicine in Germany, the first steps for extending this broad consent approach to wider areas of application, including smaller institutions and medical practices, are currently under consideration.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Biomedical Research Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: J Biomed Inform Journal subject: INFORMATICA MEDICA Year: 2022 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Biomedical Research Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: Europa Language: En Journal: J Biomed Inform Journal subject: INFORMATICA MEDICA Year: 2022 Type: Article