Seeing someone else's record in England or Spain

What does it take to see someone else's health record?

Longetic keeps the record you assemble yourself, and that turns out to be the part a carer actually ends up holding. England and Spain both let one person act for another, but they build it differently: England treats it as access a GP surgery grants inside its own online services, and Spain treats it as a legal representation you prove with documents. Neither one hands the carer a copy to carry.

If you look after a parent, a partner or a child, the question is rarely whether a right exists. It is what the counter asks you for. In England the answer is a setting, switched on by one practice, for services run by that practice. In Spain the answer is a sentence in a statute and a form you sign in person. Both answers are published. They are published in different places, by different kinds of body, and they ask you for different things.

What does England call this now?

The NHS website no longer leads with the phrase proxy access. The consumer pages now sit under family and carer access, and they say the older names are still in circulation. That matters if you are searching: pages built around the old wording may be out of date, and some older NHS App help paths no longer resolve at all.

On the page titled What is family and carer access, reviewed on 2 July 2026, the NHS writes that "a GP surgery can give someone family and carer access (also known as proxy access)". The hub page adds a line listing the informal names side by side: "This is sometimes called proxy access, a linked profile or third party access". The NHS App help page records the in-app history too, noting that family and carer access used to be described in the app as manage health services for others.

Three labels, one mechanism. The practical consequence is that a carer reading two guides written a year apart can reasonably believe they are reading about two different things.

Who decides whether you get it in England?

The practice does. NHS guidance for adults says you contact the surgery of the person who needs help, that you may both have to complete a form and show photo ID, and that the surgery then decides. The published wording leaves open the possibility of no access at all, and NHS England tells practices the access can be refused or withdrawn.

The NHS page How to get family and carer access for adults, reviewed on 2 July 2026, says that "In most cases you will need to contact the GP surgery of the person who wants help with their healthcare". It then says the surgery will make sure the person giving access understands and agrees to it, where needed. On identity it says "You may both have to fill in a form and prove who you are using photo ID".

The sentence to read closely is the next one. The page says the surgery will then decide "what access, if any, is appropriate". The words if any are doing real work, and a summary that drops them describes a different system.

NHS England says the same thing to practices rather than to patients. Its long-read on proxy access, marked Version 1.3, 13 March 2025, says "Proxy access may be refused or withdrawn by a practice when there are concerns", and separately refers to a situation where the patient's GP assesses that "it is not in the best interests of the patient". That document is written for professionals, so treat it as evidence about practice discretion, not as consumer instructions.

What can a trusted person actually do in England?

The NHS lists ordering repeat prescriptions, booking appointments, contacting the surgery, viewing test results or vaccinations, and seeing all or part of the GP health record. Every item on that list sits under a hedge: the page says a trusted person may be able to act, not that they can. The person granting access chooses how much of the record is included.

The published list opens with a qualifier that governs everything after it. The NHS writes that "A trusted person (also known as a proxy) may be able to act for the person they care for, by:" and then gives, as separate items, ordering repeat prescriptions, booking appointments, contacting the surgery or speaking to surgery staff, and viewing test results or vaccinations. The record item reads "accessing all or part of the GP health record, to help with health-related tasks and managing health issues".

The page on giving someone access is written to the patient rather than the carer, and it is the clearest statement that this is partial by design. It says "You do not have to give your trusted person access to all of your medical information. It's your choice." It describes a surgery being able to "set a date the trusted person has access from", so you do not have to share your whole medical history, and to "stop your trusted person seeing specific things in your record that you do not want to share". On ending it, the page is unhedged: "You can remove access at any time, by telling your GP surgery".

One constraint on that page outranks all the others for anyone caring across a distance. The NHS writes that "They do not need to live with you, but you need to be registered at the same GP surgery to get access". The same requirement is published twice more: the NHS App help page says "You and the other person need to be registered at the same GP surgery to do this", and NHS England Digital says "Both the patient and proxy need to be registered at the same GP practice".

Can you apply through the NHS App yet?

Not everywhere: the NHS page about applying in the app says some surgeries are trialling the feature, and NHS England Digital describes the service behind it as a pilot. The published position is that the route exists, is being tested, and is not stated to be available nationally. If your surgery is not in it, the page tells you to ask the surgery for another way.

The NHS page Apply for family and carer access in the NHS App, reviewed on 2 July 2026, opens with "Some GP surgeries are trialling a new feature in the NHS App", and continues that it allows you to send an online application for family and carer access to them. It then says "If your GP surgery is taking part in this trial, you will see these options", and that you'll need to prove your identity before you can apply to manage services for others.

NHS England Digital says the same from the service side. Its page on the proxy application service, last edited on 20 October 2025, says the service is "only available to GP practices taking part in our pilot", and that "The proxy application service lets patients apply for proxy access through the NHS App or NHS website". It also sets one flat limit: "This service cannot be used if the NHS record of the proxy or the patient shows either person as deceased".

The NHS App help page carries the matching consumer line, "Some GP surgeries are testing a new NHS service which you can use to apply". That page prints Page last reviewed: 23 September 2024 and Next review due: 23 March 2025, so its review date has passed. Where it disagrees with the pages reviewed in July 2026, prefer the newer ones.

What does Spanish law say about acting for someone else?

Spain puts it in the statute rather than in a portal: Ley 41/2002 says the patient's right of access to the clinical record may also be exercised by duly accredited representation. The sentence is short and it does not define what accrediting means. That definition lives in regional paperwork, and the paperwork is where the cost of it becomes visible.

The consolidated text on the BOE, which prints Última modificación: 01 de marzo de 2023, sets out article 18 under the heading Artículo 18. Derechos de acceso a la historia clínica. Its second paragraph reads, in two fragments as the text renders: "El derecho de acceso del paciente a la historia clínica puede ejercerse también por", and "representación debidamente acreditada". The operative phrase is "representación debidamente acreditada", and the verb is permissive: puede ejercerse.

Article 18 also carves back the patient's own access. Paragraph one grants access "con las reservas señaladas en el apartado 3 de este artículo", and paragraph three says professionals who wrote the record "pueden oponer al derecho de acceso la reserva de sus anotaciones subjetivas". Those are options the professionals may exercise, not automatic redactions.

One thing article 18 does not do is set a clock. Searched explicitly for plazo, días, mes and meses, the article contains none of them. The familiar one-month figure belongs to the data protection regulator, not to this law. The AEPD answer on requesting a copy of your own record, a page that prints no dates at all, carries it as two fragments: "Se debe facilitar en el plazo de un mes", and "aunque se puede ampliar el plazo otros dos meses". The extension is permitted, not automatic, and quoting the first fragment without the second overstates the position.

What do Spanish regional portals publish?

Six of seventeen regions were read for this piece: four publish a representation mechanism of some kind, one publishes none, and every region that publishes steps routes them through a counter rather than a screen. The national layer publishes no proxy category at all. The eleven regions not read are unchecked, not silent.

Start with the national layer, because it sets the floor. The Ministry of Health page on the HCDSNS, which prints no dates and sits in the section for professionals, lists who can get in: "Ciudadanos con Tarjeta Sanitaria Individual (TSI) activa en algún Servicio de Salud o que haya tenido TSI previamente", and "Profesionales sanitarios autorizados". There is no third category. The same page says "El Ministerio de Sanidad no guarda informes clínicos." and that "El almacenamiento de su información clínica se efectúa en los Servicios de Salud autonómicos del SNS." So the question moves to the regions by design.

Andalucia restates the statute and adds to it. The Servicio Andaluz de Salud page on requesting a health history says access may be sought by "las personas titulares de la misma o por representación debidamente acreditada", and then splits that in a way the law does not: "esta representación puede otorgarse de forma voluntaria o ser ejercida en los supuestos legalmente establecidos". For a person who has died it names heirs alongside the statutory categories, writing of "personas vinculadas al fallecido por razones familiares, de hecho o sus herederos". Heirs are an Andalusian addition, not statutory wording.

Galicia publishes the most concrete answer to what accrediting costs. Its Modelo de solicitude de documentacion clinica, a Galician-language form that prints no date, sets out numbered categories of requester with the documents each must bring. The legal representative category asks for "escritura notarial de apoderamento que especifique acceso á historia clínica do paciente". A general power of attorney is not described as enough: the document has to name the record.

Catalonia is the only portal read that publishes actual steps, and the first one settles the format. Its help page on accessing other profiles, in Catalan and printing no dates, says "La sol·licitud d'accés s'ha de fer presencialment al centre d'atenció primària (CAP)". It is also the only portal text found that addresses one adult acting for another: "Quan una persona adulta és representant legal d'una altra persona, pot accedir al seu perfil a La Meva Salut". That is conditioned on being a legal representative, which the page ties to a sentencia judicial, and not on the other adult simply agreeing.

Aragon publishes its route through the PIN for its Carpeta de Salud. The Salud Informa page says the PIN can be collected at any health centre "de forma personal o autorizando a alguien para que realice la solicitud en su nombre", and that an authorised person must bring identification for both people and a signed "Solicitud de autorización y recogida del PIN", a model form revised on 28/02/2019. That authorises collecting the access key on someone's behalf, which is a narrower thing than a general right of representation.

The Basque Country names the role and withholds the route. The Osakidetza terms of use for the Carpeta de Salud, which print Fecha de última modificación: 05/04/2021, define a Persona Autorizada as a "tercera persona habilitada legalmente para acceder a la Carpeta de Salud de otro Titular", and mention a permit for Fundaciones Tutelares to reach the records of people under their guardianship. The conditions are left as en los casos contemplados, and the page does not enumerate them.

Madrid publishes nothing of the kind. Its page on the HCDSNS, which prints Última actualización: 20 noviembre 2025, says "Pueden acceder a la Historia Clínica Digital ciudadanos a partir de 16 años", and lists as the other permitted readers "Los previstos por la ley: profesionales sanitarios autorizados". It comes close to an express denial, telling the reader the system guarantees that "sólo Vd. y los profesionales sanitarios que deban atenderle podrán conocer esta información".

Where do England and Spain actually differ?

Both publish a way for one person to act for another, and both insist on proof; the difference is what kind of thing the answer is. England publishes a feature with a switch, granted and revocable by one practice, limited to that practice's own services. Spain publishes a legal status, proved once with documents at a counter, that travels with the paperwork rather than with an account.

The last row is the one that decides what a carer does next. Neither system publishes the carer's own copy as an outcome. England gives a view inside an account that one surgery controls. Spain gives a right exercised against whoever holds the record, and the Ministry of Health has already said it is not the Ministry: "El Ministerio de Sanidad no guarda informes clínicos."

Can you request records for someone else under data protection law?

In the UK, yes, with proof of permission. The regulator says a subject access request can be made for another person if you can show they allowed it, and names written permission or a power of attorney as examples of the proof. The organisation can decline if it is not satisfied you have permission, so the yes is conditional, not automatic.

The ICO page on getting copies of your information asks the question directly, "Can I make a SAR for someone else?", and answers Yes. "You can make a SAR for someone else if you can prove you have the person's permission". It then says that "When you submit a request for someone else, the organisation will ask for proof such as:" and lists, as separate items, "written permission from the person; or", and "a power of attorney document". The phrase such as means the list is illustrative.

The same page puts the refusal in plain terms: "They don't have to give you the information you ask for if they are not happy you have permission to receive it". It also warns the person granting permission what they are handing over, noting that the requester "could gain access to information that you don't want to share with them, such as your medical history".

Two cautions on that page. It prints Latest updates - 17 April 2024 and separately says that, due to changes made by the Data (Use and Access) Act, the guidance is under review and may be subject to change. And on the general right of access the regulator writes that organisations usually have one month to respond to a SAR. The word usually is carrying the sentence.

What about a child, or someone who has died?

Both systems publish something here, and neither publishes one clean rule. In England the age at which parental access ends is written two ways on two NHS pages, and the practice cut-off is given as a range, while in Spain different ages appear across different sources. Treat any single number you read elsewhere as needing its own source.

On children, the NHS page for under sixteens says "Family and carer access usually ends when a child turns 16 years old", and separately that "Most GP surgeries also have an automatic cut-off age between 11 and 14 years old". The page written for under sixteens themselves states it flatly instead: "When you are 16, you are treated the same as an adult, and parent and guardian access stops". Where they disagree, the hedged version is the safer one to rely on.

A number that is widely misread is thirteen. On the NHS page for young people it is the age at which you get your own access, not the age parental access ends: "When you are 13, you can get access to your doctor's services yourself". The same page adds the part most summaries drop: "Getting access yourself does not mean your parent or guardian has to stop their access". NHS England names no ages at all in its long-read, deferring instead to "the age specified in the RCGP guidance".

Spain's numbers are scattered across jurisdictions, and each has to be named with its source. Madrid publishes access from 16, Catalonia frames 16 as the "majoria d'edat sanitària", and the AEPD answer on parents pivots on 14. The AEPD page is hedged throughout, writing that "el artículo 154 del Código Civil habilitaría el acceso de los progenitores", and that the child "podría ejercer el derecho de acceso" from 14. Those are conditional verbs, not settled rules, and the same page sends complaints away from the regulator, to "las autoridades sanitarias o judiciales correspondientes".

For a person who has died, Spain publishes a route and England, on the pages read for this piece, does not publish a current one. Article 18 says centres sólo facilitaran el acceso a la historia clínica de los pacientes fallecidos a las personas vinculadas a el, por razones familiares o de hecho, with the exception "salvo que el fallecido lo hubiese prohibido expresamente y así se acredite". Note the double condition: the prohibition must exist and be evidenced. The only official England page retrieved on this subject carries a notice that it was withdrawn in 2017, so it is not cited here and no English rule is stated.

What should a carer write down and bring?

Longetic holds the part of this that neither system gives you: the file you built. Across every source read, the published outcome is permission to look, not a copy to carry, so the list a carer keeps is the asset. Write down who granted what, when, at which practice or counter, and which documents you had to produce to get it.

Six things are worth keeping in one place, and none of them require a clinician.

The first is the name of the arrangement as the system calls it, because the labels differ and so do the pages. In England that is family and carer access, and in Spain it is "representación debidamente acreditada". Asking at a counter with the wrong phrase costs a visit.

The second is the date access was granted or the form was signed, with the practice or office that did it. In England the published position is that one surgery grants access to its own services, and that both people must be registered there. If the person you care for changes practice, that is the day the arrangement needs rechecking.

The third is the documents you produced. Galicia's form is explicit that the legal representative route wants a notarial power of attorney naming the record; Aragon's PIN authorisation wants identification for both people and a signed form; England's adult page says you may both have to fill in a form and prove who you are using photo ID. Keeping copies of what you handed over saves repeating it.

The fourth is what the access actually covers. England publishes partial access as normal, with all or part of the record and the option to set a start date, so the useful note is not that you have access, it is which parts and from when.

The fifth is one medication list across prescribers, kept by you rather than inferred from a portal. Neither England's nor Spain's published mechanism gives the carer a document to carry, and the list is the thing most often asked for first.

The sixth is the dates of recent tests and appointments, in the same place as the rest. If you are also moving between countries, what you carry for a doctor abroad is a separate problem with a separate answer, and it is worth reading before a trip rather than after. Pairing this with what to write down before an appointment, and with a doctor-ready summary, is what turns a folder into something a clinician can read in two minutes.

None of this is a substitute for the official route. It is the part of the official route that nobody keeps for you.

Frequently asked questions