Opting Out of the New NHS Database 2007

[demon_x_slash]

And more vindication, here.

 

Records hit by NHS computer error 08/05/2007

 

Hundreds of inaccurate patient records have been created every day due to a fault on the controversial new NHS computer system, it has been claimed. The problem affects patients in Greater Manchester who have hospital appointments booked via the online system.

NHS Connecting for Health, which is overseeing the £12.4 billion upgrade of the patient records system, stressed the fault would have no impact on patient care.

An article in Computer Weekly magazine revealed the problem arose after computer experts installed a software upgrade.

This caused the computer to automatically create a new blank patient record without checking if one already exists raising fears doctors may be presented with the wrong information.

A spokesman for NHS Connecting for Health said the problem was expected to be fixed in the next few weeks.

He said: "Although comprehensive testing is undertaken prior to the upgrades taking place, it is not unusual for these kinds of upgrades to identify teething problems in the early stages following implementation.

"We estimate that around 400 duplicate patient records might have been created each day. However, the system is being continually monitored throughout each day and where a duplicate is identified data is being merged to form one single record for each patient."

He added: "Prior to the application of the permanent fix, an interim solution has been put in place to identify the duplicate records and correct them. This has now been put in place with the full agreement of those organisations affected and will have minimal impact on the users of the system and no impact on the delivery of patient care."

Among the places affected by the problem are the University Hospital of South Manchester Foundation Trust and PCT Clinical Assessment Centres in Greater Manchester.

[maybelline]

NHS Connecting for Health — NHS Connecting for Health

 

just having a look at his.

[demon_x_slash]

PMSL - "Ministry of Truth strikes again!"

 

Myth busters — NHS Connecting for Health

[demon_x_slash]

About time this thread was bumped

[patrickq1]

Let's go one step further and apply aforesaid sterling skill and planning...to everything. Medical records (handy for all those insurance companies); educational records (only one A level? what a shame, Mr. Smith); employment records (ooh, off sick for two weeks five years ago!); financial records (couldn't pay the mobile bill last month, eh?); criminal records (scrumped as a lad? dangerous); travel, abroad or at home? that too (what are they doing and where are they going and why?); where you've lived previously (hmm, unassigned council tax debt - ah, so-n-so lived here near that time, must be them...); oh, and your biometrics, so eyescan, fingerprint, even DNA if it gets to that fearful stage (she sneezed near the scene ten minutes ago - must've been her!); all linked nicely to your family members and everyone you've ever had a joint bill/contract with, so we can add socioeconomic status to that (ugh, look what sort of family he comes from, awful yah?).

this is a case of big brother going over the top NOT EVEN THE GESTAPO HAD THIS MUCH INFO ABOUT JEWS during the ww11,

it needs to challenged at every twist and turn...do you know who has implemented the system hopefully it isnt the AMERICANS who are now doing all the medical reports ALL WORKS TESTS as they are and have ties to experian in america and the same company in america who are being sued in class actions of 25 million americans and the canadians are now starting a law suit against them they are also the largest insurance compnay ,s in america....so all data like this should now be brought to the attention of your MP and also its time for the AMP to bring it to the fore in the european parliment to bring this to a halt data protestion what a laugh their is none

patrick

[maybelline]

here here, and the phone bill, didnt pay it TEN years ago?? tut tut, allowed to keep that indefinately dont you know (equifax) grrrrrhhhhhhh

[Jake Maverick]

Please be careful you lot, read my other post about what was done to me!!!! My advice (now) is not to co-operate with g-men in any way whatsoever!!!!

[maybelline]

CRC Conference 2007 Archive ~ Credit Research Centre

 

came across this, if youscroll down Afilliations our cra friends appear here too

[andrew1]

it needs to challenged at every twist and turn...do you know who has implemented the system hopefully it isnt the AMERICANS who are now doing all the medical reports ALL WORKS TESTS as they are and have ties to experian in america and the same company in america who are being sued in class actions of 25 million americans and the canadians are now starting a law suit against them they are also the largest insurance compnay ,s in america....so all data like this should now be brought to the attention of your MP and also its time for the AMP to bring it to the fore in the european parliment to bring this to a halt data protestion what a laugh their is none

patrick

 

INPS

[Annie777]

The point of it is to make things better for patients. You go into a surgery and you can have a referral made automatically without the pallaver of referral letters by snail mail. The consultant at the other end can then see your med records on screen so doesn't need all your notes sent. Technically a good idea for more efficient treatment.

 

However, obviously there need to be stringent security procedures in place. The information is already there anyway - just in paper format. This should theoretically put it into a more secure format than lying around on surgery shelves. So basically I don't think the ideas behind it are sinister or big brother-ish. The NHS is probably the only organisation of its size that still uses a cumbersome paper system and they are trying to change that. A paper system means that your gp spends a lot of time trying to find out what's happened to your referral letter rather than discussing your prognosis. I guess they are reluctant for patients to opt out because it will mean they have to be processed outside the system. I was really impressed when I went to see a consultant recently and he had all my blood test results in front of him on screen. Personally I think it's a great idea.

 

Maybe the government needs a dedicated department devoted to ensuring security and accuracy of centrally held information. Together with a procedure for correcting errors or ommissions where the public can feel confident that problems will be fixed and where work is ongoing to protect data from corruption or hacking.

[patrickq1]

thank you andrew i have read some of the vision 3 documentation,and the very elequent letter above that should or is designed to avert peoples fear,now on vision 3 data retention all your data will and is available to the BMI INSURANCE AND ALSO MORE DISTURBINGLY the DATA CONCERNING GENETICS AND DANA is only temporarly halted meaning at a later date your genetic data will be available and also all dna data ,can you imagine this ,,,,,

i am more convinced than ever all because of the nice letter explaining the benefits,soon the benifits will only be of benefit to INSURANCE CO and not for our benefit,the letter above mentions the data must be protested i would like to ask FROM WHO when it is already available through the vision 3 project

Medical Report for Insurance Purposes

General Practitioner’s Report

The Agreement between the ABI and BMI, along with the Data Protection

Act, requires the GP to ensure all information is adequate, relevant and not

excessive.

We will treat any information you provide strictly in line with our

confidentiality policy. This keeps to the guidelines issued by the Association

of British Insurers (ABI). We will not use the information to assess

insurance applications from anyone other than the applicant. The questions

in this form are standard across the insurance industry for health and lifeprotection

products. They have been agreed between the Association of

British Insurers and the British Medical Association.

The format of this report is based on the agreed Insurance Industry

Standard eGPR.

It is important that the signing GP checks the report for any errors and

removes any references to third parties before sending to the company.

The GP must ensure that all relevant information is included for each

section. If the record has been summarised from the Lloyd George and only

“headline” data for the illness provided the GP must edit the report extract

to provide the additional data relevant to the insurance applied for i.e. to

confirm outcome of the problem and ensure the other sections of the report

contain details of any associated investigations or treatment.

Insurance Company Details

Company Name and Reference

Last 1 Medical History Record where Read Code is 9E41.00 Life

ass.prelim.rep.completed

Patient Details

Name Title, Forename, Surname Date of Birth

NHS No.

Address main address Patients main address details

[patrickq1]

so in a nutshell the DATA is already out their and being shared with the insurance companies contrary to the nice letter posted above....no strict guidlines are in place so why is it available without our say so

patrickq1

[Annie777]

I don't know who it is shared with but there are strict procedures under Caldicott regulations etc as to who is allowed to see it and how much they are allowed to see. The sort of data sent through the system is anonymised under data protection. Paper records exist and have always existed. This is a way of consolidating all the different paper records rather than have info that the GP or consultant hasn't received. It's a good thing for the patient, the doctors and the taxpayer because it cuts down on admin, postage and faxes/phone calls to find out what's already on screen.

 

Obviously you need to have a system which allows a certain amount of info to be available to professionals to allow them to do their jobs properly so that they don't end up treating the wrong patient etc. Obviously the data needs to be in a secure format.

[patrickq1]

i do understand the need to make data available to the consultants and doctors ,but the goverment have not made available any considerable gaurantees that the data will not be sold to a third party their is also no secure ,in fact to entrust this data with the goverment who cannot look after any data and when they are already in discussions with the data i posted above

Medical Report for Insurance Purposes

General Practitioner’s Report

this data will be sold on then we have the genetic issues of DNA data being sold for the above reasons,this has not been denied by the goverment ,

so hence the need for everyone to sign a DO NOT SHARE MY DATA WITH ANYONE....

[Annie777]

I guess that's why I said that the best way forward would be for a dedicated body to be set up to deal with all these issues. After all it affects all information stored on government databases and not just NHS.

[blipvert]

sorry new to this, without spending much time trawling the entire thread, are our sensitive medical records now on-line or do I (or should that be can I) opt out. This government is obsessed with harvesting data on its citizens.

[PompeyGirl]

I'm afraid that I agree with Annie77.

 

Before I start - data security should be taken very seriously. At all times. However, every time we pay on the internet we are disclosing personal information, which can be used by the third party. I doubt many people think twice about online transactions.

 

My father is involved in the project, and stringent measures are being taken to ensure the database is as secure as possible.

I for one would prefer a fire-walled, regularly monitored system to hold my medical notes than my current GPs dusty practice! An automated database will certainly have a lower margin of error than any manual process.

 

I also believe that ultimately this could save lives. Time wasted on providing personal details will be reduced, doctors will have immediate access to blood types and allergies (for example) and personal histories are more easily taken into account.

 

I definitely campaign for greater transparency across all policies, but I do believe the media like to 'whip' the pubic into a frenzy and only provide 50% of all available evidence.

I believe that this is nothing to be suspiscious of, so let's invest energies into ensuring that this is done correctly, so it can benefit us most.

[poppynurse]

Hear hear

[andrew1]

My lad is too working on this security issue within the NHS and I support PompeyGirl in that much effort and money is seen to be being spent on the security of this data, obscene amounts of money, come to that. But...One project he was involved in involved the assessment of the 'need to know' basis of access by medical staff ( I'm not at all 'medical' so I don't want to prompt any rights or wrongs here, I'm just stating what I've heard). One particular area being Midwives was being discussed and how much access do they need to ones WHOLE file and medical history.....The screening process seemed vigorous and thoroughly analysed. Now, I have no views on this......but....I have friend who happens to be a part time admin/receptionist assistant in a doctors surgery covering no end in numbers of patients in their community and she said she can go in and out of any patients notes as she feels like.

 

At one end, vast amounts are being spent to restrict access to even the most front line of medical staff such as midwives and yet at the basic user end it's a free for all, convenient to let admin staff willy nilly use the system and access full medical notes - the money should be being spent on making sure the surgeries and their staff are made FULLY aware of the DPA and ALL it stands for locking out these quasi administrators who often think they know more than trained medical staff.( and I do have a view on that as I've been brought up in and around the medical profession all my life).

[My Real Name]

.

Your argument is based on a flawed assumption - That an electronic database is more secure than paper records.

 

If a patients paper records are misplaced, or misappropriated, there is a very real cost and effort involved in disseminating this information, even willfully. This creates a layer of protection.

 

Furthermore, it is possible to retrieve the data once lost.

 

With an electronic breach, data may be replicated innumerable times, at little to no cost, and disseminated on a global scale within no time at all. Once such a breach has occurred, the dam has metaphorically burst, and it is not possible to retrieve that data.

 

The ethos behind ECR / SPINE may not be Big Brother, nor is it assumed that there are any other nefarious reasons behind the creation of a massive centralised data repository.

 

You don;t need to assume bad intentions for this to be a bad idea though. You just need to employ a modicum of cynicism, and realise that most cockups come from basic human failings of apathy, laziness, greed and self interest.

 

To address a number of individual points;

 

Technically a good idea for more efficient treatment.

But technologically a bad idea, and far from the best solution to the problem. A system of independent, localised data systems, owned at the local level, with real accountability for the data held within them, could provide the same level of functionality, at a fraction of the cost, and with a fraction of the risks.

 

Furthermore, you need to avoid conflating SPINE and ECR - One is bringing paper records up to date, and SPINE is putting them all together in one place, with access on a national level.

 

I went to see a consultant recently

It's likely that this occurred within the operating model that I described earlier. Your bloods were tested by Pathology Department A, which then sent the encrypted results to the doctor in hospital B, after some type of authorisation was invoked (public / private keys, most probably).

 

Maybe the government needs a dedicated department devoted to ensuring security and accuracy of centrally held information

Centralisation is the worst possible solution to this, and would exacerbate any accuracy and security issues. Best practice in IT is not to lump everything together into one single point of failure, whether it is at the functional or operating level, particularly where the scope is so massive.

 

Just look at how much data has been released into the wild in the past year alone. NHS trusts, DVLA, HMRC, high street banks. Personal details that, if used by someone with malicious intent, could cause very real damage to a person's livelihood.

 

protect data from corruption or hacking

It will be cracked, hacked and corrupted. This is the first assumption. You're talking about a system that will be open to hundreds of thousands of people, the majority of whom will have a password like "sally99" on a post-it note next to their PC, and will be sharing their login credentials with their colleagues, co-workers, child-minder and dog-walker.

 

Before I start - data security should be taken very seriously. At all times. However, every time we pay on the internet we are disclosing personal information, which can be used by the third party. I doubt many people think twice about online transactions.

We choose to share this information. It provides us with very real benefit. This degree of choice is what is being demanded with regards a nationwide database for medical records.

 

When a bank messes up, they suffer very real consequences. This is one of the checks and balances that protect us. They are accountable for their cockups.

 

Should the guardians of our most personal data make a booboo, it is next to guaranteed that they will not be held to account.

 

 

My father is involved in the project, and stringent measures are being taken to ensure the database is as secure as possible.

With respect to your father, this is an almost unsurmountable task. And, quite frankly, not something that the lowest bidders are fit to address.

 

I for one would prefer a fire-walled, regularly monitored system to hold my medical notes than my current GPs dusty practice! An automated database will certainly have a lower margin of error than any manual process.

Your GPs surgery is firewalled and monitored. It enjoys the benefit of small scale, so that any breach of process would be picked up and dealt with. Inaccuracies in data can be picked up on and dealt with quickly and effectively - That's the benefit of small systems.

 

I also believe that ultimately this could save lives. Time wasted on providing personal details will be reduced, doctors will have immediate access to blood types and allergies (for example) and personal histories are more easily taken into account.

Or they could just ask the patient. Just throwing that one out there. We're not cattle, after all.

 

A good doctor will take a history each and every time they are faced with a new patient, or they will rely on the history recorded during that patient's current visit.

 

If that were not the case, I'm sure that an injection of £5 billion might allow the NHS to provide a greater continuity of care, at a more personable level.

 

I definitely campaign for greater transparency across all policies, but I do believe the media like to 'whip' the pubic into a frenzy and only provide 50% of all available evidence.

The media's interest in the shortcomings of SPINE and ECR is lamentable lacking.

I believe that this is nothing to be suspiscious of, so let's invest energies into ensuring that this is done correctly, so it can benefit us most.

It's not about suspicion, it's about lack of credibility, and a catalogue of failings and errors in this field, with little to no indication that they can do it right.

 

So here's my question to you. Should I be permitted to opt out of having my patient care record or detailed medical history stored on a national database?

[blipvert]

To suggest this database will be secure is pure fantasy. Details are bound to leak out out, get downloaded onto a memory stick (that gets lost) or whatever. But thats just the thin end of the wedge. I wouldn't be surprised to see the data get passed on to 3rd parties in some circumstances (eg insurance companies, police, CPS, some employers perhaps (to name a few)).

[Madamfluff]

First of all the new database will NOT save lives, If I am bought in to Hospital unconcious with no ID just whose medical records will they get from the computer if they do not know my name. If I only have a libary card with the name Jane Smith what Jane Smith will they choose out of the thousands on the data base if they do not have my DOB and address .

 

But the main thing is wrong information about me on their computers, we all have the right under the data protection act to see our records UNLESS it will cause us harm ( in some DRs opinion ) or gives info about another person but this information will still be on the spine for other people to look at and make desicions about me even if its not correct and I cant see it to amend or challenge it so let me tell you what happened to my Sister two years ago and make up your own minds

 

She did three things got married and changed her name to lets say Lisa Smith from Lisa Brown she moved so changed her GP and then got pregnant so went into the Hospital/Medical machine

 

After having a dreadful time with not being able to have her medical folder when other mums had theirs being treated dreadfully and cruelly by the nurses and midwives and being told that Social Services were being informed about her pregnanacy she asked to see her Medical records and was refused, So I went with her to an appointment and STOLE them yes STOLE them and a good thing I did

 

There was another Lisa Smiths records in her file this lady had mental problems and was diagnosed as suidcidal and had been admitted to a mental hospital for 6 months . We thought we could sort it out with out fuss as it was a mistake - oh no

 

First of all I was threatened with arrest for stealing the records, the staff from admin staff to Doctors assuring themselves they are Demi Gods who cant be questioned were arrogant nasty threatening and downright liars

for instance we were told that my Sister would have lied about her time in hospital and not informed her family, when I mentioned we had her wage slips, Tax records and NI contribution info for the period she was supposed to have been commited one Dr went bright red and stuttered, when we also mentioned that we did of course have proof also that her name was Lisa Brown during the period and had her marriage cerificate to prove it there was silence, when in the same meeting we were told that there was no evidence that the Lisa in the records was not my sister and then told the other Lisa could sue us for breach of confidentiality as we had seen her records there was suprise when I picked up on this and questioned them about it.

 

In the end we threatened them with legal action as well as saying we would get the press involved and the records were taken out although we were not allowed to see updated records to confirm this

 

She moved back to her old town to have her Baby and used her maiden name to ensure that these records did not follow her did not mention the other GP and rejoined her old GP using her maiden name as well and all went ok ( not sure if this was legal but she didnt care)

 

This is why I wont be on the data base nor will any members of my family