Re: Let patients be custodians of their own medical records
This is a splendid idea, and would certainly save a lot of trouble. There might be a problem with some people who find it difficult to keep files tidy (I am certainly not faultless here), but I remember a time when my husband had a stroke and we had to cancel a holiday, and the insurance company required a huge amount of evidence from our GP before it would pay up. This amounted in the end to a thick file, which the GP surgery had to copy - somewhat reluctantly. It would have been much simpler if my husband had kept his medical records himself.
Another example of a situation where it would be helpful is where a patient has to travel between various different healthcare practitioners, for instance after cancer, from surgeon to oncologist for radiotherapy and then chemotherapy, often given at different hospitals. It would be so much easier and tidier if the patient carried the necessary documents. Thirty years ago some cancer patients weren't even told they had cancer, but thank goodness things have changed, and doctors don't now talk patronisingly about 'naughty cells'. It is possible that some elderly patients will decline responsibility for their records, and prefer that their doctors are their sole custodians, but younger people may well prefer to have them. People should be given the choice.
It might also give patients a sense of responsibility for their own health, and a better partnership with doctors. It would also give those people who wish to seek complementary therapies not available on the NHS (for example, acupuncture, osteopathy) reliable records which might be really helpful. Bring it on, say I!
Rapid Response:
Re: Let patients be custodians of their own medical records
This is a splendid idea, and would certainly save a lot of trouble. There might be a problem with some people who find it difficult to keep files tidy (I am certainly not faultless here), but I remember a time when my husband had a stroke and we had to cancel a holiday, and the insurance company required a huge amount of evidence from our GP before it would pay up. This amounted in the end to a thick file, which the GP surgery had to copy - somewhat reluctantly. It would have been much simpler if my husband had kept his medical records himself.
Another example of a situation where it would be helpful is where a patient has to travel between various different healthcare practitioners, for instance after cancer, from surgeon to oncologist for radiotherapy and then chemotherapy, often given at different hospitals. It would be so much easier and tidier if the patient carried the necessary documents. Thirty years ago some cancer patients weren't even told they had cancer, but thank goodness things have changed, and doctors don't now talk patronisingly about 'naughty cells'. It is possible that some elderly patients will decline responsibility for their records, and prefer that their doctors are their sole custodians, but younger people may well prefer to have them. People should be given the choice.
It might also give patients a sense of responsibility for their own health, and a better partnership with doctors. It would also give those people who wish to seek complementary therapies not available on the NHS (for example, acupuncture, osteopathy) reliable records which might be really helpful. Bring it on, say I!
Competing interests: No competing interests