Regulated transfer, without the guesswork
Under the GDPR, sending or sharing personal data—including transmission—is processing. You remain accountable for the means you choose. This channel is built for that reality: a zero-setup, direct path for sensitive clinical data and structured feedback between your organisation and your clinical partner, with security and compliance baked in—not bolted on.
Why “just email” fails the test
Article 32 requires appropriate technical and organisational measures; for special-category health data, unencrypted or consumer-grade channels are increasingly treated as insufficient. Controllers cannot hide behind routing they do not control—the tool you pick is your processing decision. A dedicated channel closes that gap.
How the clinical channel works
End‑to‑end encrypted flow — no middleman access, no configuration overhead.
Public key data encryption - Transfer encryption at every step - Auditable by design
Aligned with transfer & processor realities
There is no legal “vacuum” for data in transit: disclosure and making data available are regulated operations. This offer supports the control points regulators expect—authorised channels, encryption in transit, documented choices—so clinical collaboration stays defensible under GDPR (and fits organisations also subject to parallel rules such as NIS2-style expectations on secure communications).
Onboard both sides quickly: no heavy integration project to start exchanging data and feedback with your clinical counterpart.
Encryption and controlled access reduce the breach and misuse risks that generic tools introduce for sensitive medical information.
Designed for EU GDPR processing: you can document the channel in policies, DPIAs, and agreements instead of improvising with consumer apps.
Focused infrastructure—direct clinical exchange without paying for sprawling platforms you do not need for this workflow.
Direct relationship between processor and clinical partner: clearer accountability than opaque third-country or ad hoc consumer routes.
Not only files—structured feedback alongside data so collaboration stays traceable and auditable.
Clinical channel vs. consumer tools
A direct comparison with everyday communication methods — based on GDPR Article 32 requirements and EDPB guidance on transfers.
| Feature | Email (typical) | WeTransfer | Our channel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transmission audit trail | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Processor controls retention | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Third‑country transfer risk | ⚠️ high | ⚠️ high | ✅ EU‑controlled |
| Art. 32 GDPR alignment | ⚠️ high risk | ⚠️ high risk | ✅ compliant |
Based on EDPB guidelines 01/2021, WP256, and Schrems II case law.
What your documentation can say
Supervisory practice stresses formal transmission rules, approved tools, and staff training. Positioning your clinical link becomes straightforward when the channel itself matches those expectations.
- Define this as an authorised transmission channel for partner clinical data and feedback.
- Show encryption in transit and access control as part of your Article 32 measures.
- Avoid habitual reliance on consumer messaging or unmanaged personal mail for medical data.
- Record tool choices in DPIAs and policies where special-category data is involved.
- Align incident handling: a compromised channel can trigger both privacy and cybersecurity reporting obligations—control reduces dual exposure.
Ready to close the compliance gap?
See how our encrypted clinical channel fits your GDPR documentation — live, with your actual use case.
No commitment • For processors and clinical partners
“Once you choose a communication tool, you own the legal consequences—including security failures and regulatory liability.”
Principle drawn from GDPR accountability and enforcement on means of processing.
Reach us through the contact page.