<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The main purpose of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 was to admit hearsay
evidence and to provide associated conditions. Section 7 made it
possible to admit copies of documents and section 8 allowed for the
admission of "records" of a business or public authority provided there
was an affidavit / certificate that the records formed part of the
regular business activity.<br>
<br>
Thus, the law is about allowing such records to be admitted (whereas
before much more complicated forms of proof were required). Once the
evidence is admitted it is still open to challenge on the grounds of
weight (eg that in some respect it is not accurate). However normally
there will be a rebuttable presumtion in favour of reliablity. <br>
<br>
The Civil Evidence Act does not prescribe standards by which records in
electronic form should be kept. There are some applicable
international standards: ISO 18492:2005 and 15801:2009. There are
also some BSI documents: BS 10008:2008.<br>
<br>
I don't know if elsewhere there are specific requirements for the
maintenance of medical records.<br>
<br>
Off the top of my head, I would guess that the obligation would be to
keep old records in their original electronic format plus the software
necessary to read them. And probably have more than one copy kept in
more than one place for safety's sake. An audit trail in the form of
a document saying when the archive was created and by whom would also
seem to be a good plan.<br>
<br>
Unless some-one else here knows better? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/08/2010 08:40, Mary Hawking wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:34FDBD09AF834939BF3B67393ACFABFD@MaryPC"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">GPs were allowed to keep
their patient records
electronically by Statutory Instrument in 2000, and the law that
allowed the
electronic EPR in evidence was the Civil Evidence Act of 1995.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">GP practices change
systems over the years, sometimes
several times, and patients move between practices: some systems only
transfer
the records of current patients – i.e. if a patient leaves the list the
day before the data is downloaded for transfer to the new GP system,
the only
place that the record will be preserved is on that practice’s old
system.(apart
from any print-outs or GP2GP record transfers which lack audit trails).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">How does the CEA deal
with computer evidence when the
organisation/individual concerned has changed systems – and does anyone
have any references to cases which might be relevant to the GP
situation?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The additional twist in
GP records is that for an infant at
birth, problems can be raised up to 3 years after the age of maturity –
or indefinitely if the infant is sufficiently damaged to never reach
mental
competence…<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Genuine enquiry – topic
was raised regarding GP
records and keeping a copy of the database in an old system: I don’t
think it has been decided in court – yet – so I wondered whether
there was non-medical case law which might be applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Mary Hawking<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">GP<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">
</pre>
</body>
</html>