Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
confidentiality of computer records
- Chris Pelton (14 May 2004)
-
Private Information and Electronic Records
- susanne mccabe (4 December 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Chris Pelton, GP wellington Medical Practice Telford TF1 1PZ
Send response to journal:
|
I thoroughly agree. No network is secure and if integrated computerised NHS records ever become a reality (which I think is unlikely- but that's another topic), the contents might as well be public. Recently a patient with a background in information technology has asked me not to make computer entries in his record because he wishes the traditional standard of confidentiality. The new GP contract allows considerable scrutiny of our data by the Primary Care Trust in order to assess our quality targets. I have no doubt that a clever and sufficiently determined young hacker will eventually find a way to roam at will amongst my patients'records. Chris Pelton Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
susanne mccabe, retired cf24 3pf
Send response to journal:
|
The proposal to put medical records on a National shared electronic data base is causing concern. Week aftr week serious breaches of confidence are revealed in systems already in use.(E-Health Insider, Issue 147,29th Oct - 'high risk records in all formats present difficulties which increasing rather than decreasing'). In June 2000 Andrew Browne of the Observer published a leaked report from the GP Ethics Committee (Lives Ruined as NHS leaks Records). The Chair expressed concern at the level of erosion 'routine practice fails to fulfill the basic principles of data protection. There has been no public debate, and the public as both citizens and patients are mostly ignorant of the degree to which information is passed around'. This report was leaked.The public needs transparency if it is to trust others with sensitive aspects of their lives. It should have been openly shared with 'patients and citizens' who are now often starting from scratch in getting to grips with decisions about electronic records. There is determination that records will be put on a National Electronic Data System even though as yet no idetified person in any health team is designated to inform people who use services and many who are handling information are expressing disquiet. It is a nonsense to rely on the goodwill of various employees. Resources will need to be allocated. The odd public meeting or conference will not be sufficient nor putting information and consultation processes on line where only a minority will access them.Yet this is how public awareness campaigns have been run so far. Thousands of people, as the article from the Kings Fund revealed recently, are not even aware they may read their records - and healthworkers in general have not been proactive in telling them. How are the same people going to handle the obligation to give information about electronic records. Articles in HEALTH INFORMATICS (informatics.nhs.uk/item1037 )and E- HEALTH INSIDER (152) SHOW ONLY TOO CLEARLY THAT THE MAJORITY OF AN OTHERWISE WELL INFORMED CONFERENCE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. Harry Clayton Chair of the CARE RECORDS DEVELOPMENT BOARD stated issues still need clarifying as to the legal and ethical issues involved in sharing data between practitioners. Marlene Winefield, HEAD OF PUBLIC ENGAGEENT said 'we are trying to make it easier to pass information over'. 'There will be a locally mounted campaign with local publicity and guidance for staff. We're going to start doing this in the new year - it will be tied to the roll out of the National Programme'.(Health Informatics; Care Records Development Board Confronts Data Sharing document was 'reproduced with kind permission of Kable). Competing interests: None declared |
|||