NHS IT Systems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by b0redom

....

I guess it comes down to a risk assessment. I'd prefer a nosy receptionist had access to my notes and could potentially see something to gossip about (although I don't think I have anything worth gossiping about), and in the event of a car accident or similar have the A+E ward know everything about my medialca history.

---

Which is why, with any such system, it should be within the patient's authority to decide .... because I would not make that same assessment. I don't seek to prevent you or anyone else making that calculation, but I expect to get to make it myself about me, not some government official or bureaucrat making it for me. That's why I will opt out of anything I get the chance to opt out of in centralised record keeping, or in the transfer of localised records except by prior arrangement and with my approval. It is also why I have refused to go to the doctor for some tests he's been nagging me to have, for a couple of years at least - he can't computerise what he hasn't got. I do not want A&E, among others, having any access to my medical records, unless I say so.

And, as I said earlier, I'm perfectly aware of the potential implications of that decision and it's one I make with my eyes open.

Personally I think we should just have our medical records imbedded in a chip at the top of our neck. Then if you're unconcious and in need of treatment they can be accessed, but otherwise they're almost totally confidential (bar someone walking up behind you to read your record!)


On a more serious note, I've *tried* to opt out of this centralised record keeping because my ex-wife (well technically ex, it's complicated) is a nurse and I really don't want her getting access to say my psychiatric case notes. Thus far though, they're not acknowledging my request due to the stupid way the forms keep going missing.

Security - I used to work in a Health Records library when i lived in Wolverhampton. i had access to around 1 million sets of pateint information, in paper/microfilm format. These we're transported around the hospital by porters or the "post girls".

Cost savings - In my department we had around 150 staff employed in health records alone, all of these jobs would be obselete with this new system saving that trust alone around £2m a year in one department. There's 150+ NHS Trusts in the UK, all of them won't have the're own library, but you can see the potential for saving in that one department alone.

I'm not syaing it would be perfect, but it couldnt be any worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

And one for patients, especially after Freedom of Information requests apparently led one NHS trust to recently disclose that in that trust alone, some 2000+ non-medical staff had access to confidential patient records.

Personally, I do not want my medical records, any of them, being available online. Period. I have opted out of everything I'm allowed to opt out of. I'm aware of the implications of that, and that it might slow down or adversely affect treatment, especially emergency treatment, and am fully prepared to take that risk.

---

They wouldnt be available "on-line", they'd be infinitly more times secure on a secure sever only accessible via a N3 ip, and a user acount granted access to medical information, then it is at the moment where a cleaner has access to them. I'm not saying cleaners read them, but they have access to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AledJ

The system does have its benefits but its not the data security that concerns me. What happens when the system goes down, or is taken out by a virus/hacker, what will happen then? Are we not replying a little too much on technology ?

---

Systems go down in house every day, whats the difference?

Also, 8 years in the NHS and i've never experienced a virus on the computers here.