Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
It is utterly pointless for Trusts to continue investing in local IT Systems. They may initially appear to be better value, but such minimal savings are almost immediately swamped by huge spending on repeated attempts to send vital patient information to a different Trust 3 miles away. It is always the poor clinician who ends up wasting lifesaving time digging for missing information or trying to pass important patient details to another Trust, or to A&E. Without an NHS wide IT system, computers are reduced to hugely expensive typewriters.
The NHS IT systems were badly hit by WannaCry, when it was revealed that some hospitals were still using a version of Windows XP, which was so outdated that Microsoft had stopped issuing security patches. (In any case, no one had had the time to install the security patches that WERE issued).
It is the Government’s responsibility to make the necessary capital funding available for an NHS wide IT system, and NHSE’s responsibility to procure and install it in double quick time. Otherwise, patients will continue to die unnecessarily.
Mind you, that needs to be done in the next week, as Palantir (owned by Peter Thiel, a Trump supporting Libertarian) is a shoe in to get the huge Data Platform contract for every shred of NHS confidential patient data. There will be no opt out for patients, either; so our most confidential medical information will be uploaded to Palantir whether we like it or not. There is then no guarantee of anonymisation when that patient data is sold on.
Just thought I’d mention it.
Re: Patient safety: Access to critical patient information must improve, says report
Dear Editor,
It is utterly pointless for Trusts to continue investing in local IT Systems. They may initially appear to be better value, but such minimal savings are almost immediately swamped by huge spending on repeated attempts to send vital patient information to a different Trust 3 miles away. It is always the poor clinician who ends up wasting lifesaving time digging for missing information or trying to pass important patient details to another Trust, or to A&E. Without an NHS wide IT system, computers are reduced to hugely expensive typewriters.
The NHS IT systems were badly hit by WannaCry, when it was revealed that some hospitals were still using a version of Windows XP, which was so outdated that Microsoft had stopped issuing security patches. (In any case, no one had had the time to install the security patches that WERE issued).
It is the Government’s responsibility to make the necessary capital funding available for an NHS wide IT system, and NHSE’s responsibility to procure and install it in double quick time. Otherwise, patients will continue to die unnecessarily.
Mind you, that needs to be done in the next week, as Palantir (owned by Peter Thiel, a Trump supporting Libertarian) is a shoe in to get the huge Data Platform contract for every shred of NHS confidential patient data. There will be no opt out for patients, either; so our most confidential medical information will be uploaded to Palantir whether we like it or not. There is then no guarantee of anonymisation when that patient data is sold on.
Just thought I’d mention it.
Competing interests: No competing interests