Data protection law - a question

Medical history is critical to treating a patient.

If you have a pre-existing condition or have had certain types of treatment before, they need to know about it.

"What is my position,?"
You are stupid.

"Can they keep my personal details on file"
Yes, of course they can. They would be negligent if they did not keep full and comprehensive patient records. It could invalidate their insurance cover.

I should also point out that patient confidentiality if also critical to the medical profession.

The person who originally responded to this question is not only rude, but clearly does not understand the law.

Although it is true that a patient’s complete medical history is necessary in order for a physician to properly diagnose and subsequently treat the patient, requiring that a patient provide such information prior to an initial consultation/evaluation is not necessary…that is why it is an evaluation not a course of treatment. The patient should have been permitted to speak with the doctor first, especially if the patient had not yet officially decided to seek treatment with this particular doctor. Following the decision to actually seek treatment from the doctor, the patient would then have to provide a full medical history for a variety of purposes.

It is important to remember that the patient is the most important person in this relationship...not the doctor.

As far as whether or not they can keep the medical records on file, yes they can, but that right is not unconditional.

Please review the information obtained from the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law of the Catholic University of Leuven, regarding Patient Rights Legislation applicable to all 27 EU Member States.

1. The patient has the right to a medical record, carefully updated and safely stored by the health professional. The law does not provide a definition of a medical record. It is a factual notion: the medical records are the set of all facts related to health, documents, attachments, etc., that relate to a single patient, maintained and stored by a health professional, sometimes in various places and on various media (paper, electronic, etc.). The law does not provide any norms to which the medical record must adhere.

2. At the request of the patient, the health professional adds any documents supplied by the patient to the medical records, for instance an advance directive drafted by the patient.

3. Patients have the right to access their own medical records. The explanatory report thoroughly discusses the reasons for having a right to access. It is not primarily intended to satisfy the patient’s information needs: these needs are addressed by the right to information about one’s state of health and to information preceding consent or refusal. The decision to provide this information lies with the health professional, and this should be done anytime there is a need for it, if necessary several times per day (e.g. an acute hospitalization). The right of access is not a substitute for poor information delivery. If the patient needs to exercise his right of access in order to obtain information that he should already have been given, then there is something wrong with the initial information delivery. The main reason for having a right of access is to protect the patient’s privacy. On the basis of this right, the patient can exercise control over personal data included in a medical record, thus protecting his privacy.

4. A patient’s request to access his medical record shall be granted as soon as possible and not later than 15 days following the request. The health professional’s personal notes and information relating to third parties are excluded from the right of access to medical records. According to the explanatory report, personal notes are the annotations made by the health professional which are kept separately and which are never accessible to others, not even to the other members of the medical care team. The moment a health professional shows these notes spontaneously to a colleague, they lose their qualification as ‘personal notes’ and can therefore no longer be excluded from the right to access.
Patients may request to be assisted by, or to exercise their right of access through a close confidant designated by them. If the latter is a health professional, he or she shall also have the right to access the personal notes referred to above.

5. Patients have a right to obtain a copy of their medical records, in whole or in part, at cost price, in accordance with the legally prescribed provisions (i.e. by request, as soon as possible and not later than 15 days following the request, excluding personal notes and data concerning third parties, with the assistance of a confidant by request). Each copy shall clearly indicate that it is strictly personal and confidential. The health professional refuses to supply such a copy if there are clear signs that the patient has been pressured to ask a copy of his medical record at the instigation of a third party.

I would like to encourage everyone who participates in this question and answer to be considerate, polite, and most importantly, show a little etiquette and tact. This resource is available to assist people, not belittle them!

Sorry - misread that slightly.

"Can they keep my personal details on file in their office just like that?"
Yes, they can.
BRUSSELSBOUND22 refers to your rights towards that data, but it does not change the fact that they can hold data on you.
IMHO, any doctor / medical practice would be duty bound to hold details that identify you (what you seem to refer to as "private details"), and to hold some form of record of your medical history.

In fact, it is recommended that you should go to your GP and set up a centralized / computerized medical record - DMG in French - precisely so that you medical history can be accessed by anyone who needs to.
http://www.mc.be/la-mc/soins-sante-remboursements/dmg.jsp

So ideally, you would have a DMG and i would be consulted prior to you being considered for a "procedure".

@J
From your first post:
"Can they keep my personal details on file"
Yes, of course they can. They would be negligent if they did not keep full and comprehensive patient records. It could invalidate their insurance cover.

However, both of your responses seem to miss the point that the questioner is clearly NOT a patient of the medical practice in question, is not wanted as a patient and, presumably, doesn't want to be their patient.

It seems perfectly reasonable that they would ask for a medical history before making a decision but, having declined to take the person on for treatment, where is the justification for keeping this data, in particular when they have been specifically asked to return it.

"having declined to take the person on for treatment, where is the justification for keeping this data"
The person may go back, or the information may be useful to another healthcare professional. Unless you do have a centralised medical record, (which would have been available to them), then they have to keep individual records.

I would see it as having a DUTY of care to keep records.