PRESENT

Jean le Roux QEDI/PQ Health jean@qedi.co.za 011 266 6317

Hester Huysamen SASP huysamen@icon.co.za 012 807 0601

H Nortje QEDI/PQ Health henriette@qedi.co.za 011 266 6370

Lyn Hanmer MRC lyn.hanmer@mrc.ac.za 021 938 0343

Glenda de Beer SAMA glendadb@samedical.org 012 481 2027

Jenny Bayley Afrox jenny.bayley@afroc.boc.com

APOLOGIES

Heather Manley

Marina van der Merwe

Braam Volschenk

1. Welcome

Jean le Roux welcomed everyone present.

2. Previous Minutes

Under identified concerns paragraph 8 (last paragraph) second sentence the Minute should read ‘Jean le Roux suggested that this task group be extended with enough professionals….’

Minutes were then accepted and signed off.

3. Identified Concerns

Mr Volschenk contacted Mr le Roux by facsimile advising that the document he is investigating (medical ethics) will be presented via e-mail to Mr le Roux as soon as it is available.

Mr le Roux presented a copy of the Federal Register Vol 64 No 212 Wednesday November 3 1999 Proposed Rules with various highlighted sections for discussion, mainly in regard to patient confidentiality in respect of the main member’s information. Also presented as a document entitled Nasionale Handves vir Pasientregte wherein the definition of ‘informed consent’ differs from the English version – the one being the patient who is informed and the other being the attending physician who is informed. Clarification on this issue is required and Ms de Beer has undertaken to have Mr Volschenk investigate this anomaly thereafter reporting to the Committee.

The question of who should have access to what information was raised. It was generally agreed that ‘private’ fields,shown as '*****' presented the most secure way of protecting patient confidentiality.

4. Item for discussion at next meeting

Hypothetically:

If a dependent (spouse/child under the age of consent) does not want the main member/parent to know what treatment/diagnosis was identified, what rights does the dependant have and how can all the necessary information be transmitted electronically to allow processing of the claim.

The dependent policy to be looked at in this regard.

Ms Bayley took the stand that patients, in effect, have no privacy and it is therefore misleading to pretend that they do.

Ms Hanmer brought to the fore the question – if confidentiality exists, can this be extended to include other role players by sprcifically including service providers? How to provide for a stakeholder to control the verification of information retained in electronic systems and access to such records for verification purposes.

Ms Nortje raised the question of guidelines in respect of data warehousing.

Ms Hanmer to check with her Statistics Department in this regard, and on how to address the accessibility of personnel handling the data.

Must stakeholders consent be obtained?

At which measurable count (eg 30) does 'individually identiable' become a statistic population.

5. Date of next meeting

25 January 2001 at 12h30

Venue – PQ Africa, Block Q, 16^th Road, Halfway House.

MYDOC/PRIVACYMINUTES