1 / 9

South Yorkshire Data Sharing Group Information Governance Toolkit

South Yorkshire Data Sharing Group Information Governance Toolkit. Socitm Yorks and Humber Briefing Ralph McNally – Sheffield City Council. Background – South Yorkshire Data Sharing Group. Called at the request of the 4 South Yorkshire Chief Executives to explore:-

dugan
Download Presentation

South Yorkshire Data Sharing Group Information Governance Toolkit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. South Yorkshire Data Sharing GroupInformation Governance Toolkit Socitm Yorks and Humber Briefing Ralph McNally – Sheffield City Council

  2. Background – South Yorkshire Data Sharing Group • Called at the request of the 4 South Yorkshire Chief Executives to explore:- • Current Data Sharing issues in our sub-region and between the organisations represented • Current arrangements between organisations and fitness for purpose • Factors that are likely to create further Data Sharing challenges • Reports in to the South Yorkshire CIO Group – organisations represented across the Public Sector

  3. 11 Organisations Represented • The 4 South Yorkshire Local Authorities • Yorkshire Ambulance Service • 4 NHS organisations • South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive • Sheffield Hallam University

  4. Common Issues • ‘Trust’ and Infrastructure is not always in place • Different levels of maturity between organisations in the Information Assurance arena • Different standards in play (e.g. Code of Connection in LA community, Information Governance Toolkit v10 in Health) • Different set up and Governance arrangements • Information assets and owners not clearly defined making it difficult to identify the ‘right’ people • Organisational and cultural blockers capable of causing delay and frustration • Gaps in formal data sharing agreements between organisations • Common requirements requiring much closer alignment in a business context – e.g. Public Health Transfer, wish to use NHS Record numbers, Troubled families agenda etc etc etc.

  5. IG Toolkit • Sub-Group formed from the 4 LA’s to work closely with Connecting for Health to create a dedicated Local Authority Toolkit – written for the LA community by Local Authorities because:- • The 4 Partners wish to standardise our Information Management Practices (BMBC, DMBC, RMBC, SCC) • Work closely together to support and learn from each other • Bridge the gap with the NHS and create equivalence (currently NHS Toolkit written in NHS ‘speak’ not always focusing in the areas LA’s may wish for) • Desire to bring closer alignment with – HMG SPF, Data Handling Guidance, CoCo 4.1 and emerging PSN standards • Desire to elevate appropriate existing Toolkit requirements such as the Social Care delivery to sit at the right levels within our organisations (currently positioned at a Directorate/Service Level) • Agreed to produce 7 sample requirements for inclusion in Ver 10 of the Toolkit (released in June) – but actually 38 requirements

  6. IG Toolkit • The Toolkit, refocuses and repurposes many existing requirements but is laid out to reflect :- • Information Governance • Information Assurance (including Information Security) • Record Management • Health and Social Care ‘specifics’

  7. Next Steps… • Gain formal ratification for adoption within South Yorkshire • Publish the full set of requirements (Ver 11 of the Toolkit) • Work on the reference sections (to make them pertinent to Local Authorities) • Garner wider support (work to press is already generating significant interest nationally) • Continue to work closely with Connecting For Health and align the Toolkit to the emerging PSN standards • Work closely with other areas of the country (e.g. Kent PSN and their ‘aggregator’ Toolkit) • Formal approach with connecting for Health to Sir Bob Kerslake and the ICO • Formal adoption of the LA Toolkit nationally by connecting for Health (i.e. to supersede existing arrangements)

  8. How you can help • We are happy to share the requirements identified thus far (and not yet published for further critique and comment) • Is this the right approach going forward? • Test your own thinking/working in this area – Many Authorities already having to conform with existing Toolkit including Sheffield (this is not a good fit) • Consider the impacts of staying with the status quo – we have an opportunity here to help cut-through the existing issues – e.g. N3 Gateway Governance requirements, duplication with GCSX CoCo controls etc • Looking for your support and endorsement in parallel with Sub-Regional endorsement (during September)

  9. Thank You … • On behalf of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield ! • Check the examples out at the URL below (No Login required) :- • https://www.igt.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ • Select “Requirements” • Select “Local Authority” AnyQuestions

More Related