On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:10:18 +0000, David J
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:50:03 +0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"anthony" wrote in message
...
I wanted to make some effort towards preventing my personal medical details
being uploaded on the new NHS computer. Anybody on this group already
started taking steps? If so please let me know what you think is a good
course of action. Thanks

I doubt if there is anything you can do other than add your voice to the
many who are complaining. You probably have no legal right to do anything
about it.


When I recently asked my NHS Medical clinic to let me have a look
through my medical records, I was rebuked and told:

"These are not YOUR medical records - they are OURS!

If a patient wishes to exclude certain medical related information
from being held on the NHS wide system ( if it ever get going
properly), they should be fully aware that the treatment they receive
especially in an emergency may be compromised or delayed.

Robert
Robert

"David J" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:50:03 +0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"anthony" wrote in message
...
I wanted to make some effort towards preventing my personal medical
details
being uploaded on the new NHS computer. Anybody on this group already
started taking steps? If so please let me know what you think is a good
course of action. Thanks

I doubt if there is anything you can do other than add your voice to the
many who are complaining. You probably have no legal right to do anything
about it.


When I recently asked my NHS Medical clinic to let me have a look
through my medical records, I was rebuked and told:

"These are not YOUR medical records - they are OURS!

I think that they are right in terms of ownership - although the practice
manager must be a pedant.

See "Guidance for Access to Health Records Requests under the Data
Protection Act 1998"

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/03/51/94/04035194.pdf

which says:

"Original health records should not be given to patients to keep/take to a
new
GP outside the UK. The DH recommends that original patient health records
should not be sent to patients or their authorised representative because of
the potential detriment to patients should the records be lost and for
medicolegal
purposes."

The current standard for NHS records management is at:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAnd...747&chk=tMmN39

(http://preview.tinyurl.com/hzlnt)

Nick

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
Gorf wrote:
Periander wrote:
...
I can also envisage a whole host of ways in which the database could be
misused, for instance imagine the following mailshot through your door

I get a cartload of junk mail based on the postcode for where I live.
Why would it be so bad to receive junk mail based on something a bit
more targeted like my medical history?

I'm not being funny. I get junk mail for broadband and mobile phone
services that I already subscribe to! It's such a waste.

Not that I'd get the "impotence" once, of course...

Ok...

If I was a rapist, I'd quite like to get a list of girls 12 20, with a
history of assorted mental health problems, a nominal BMI, and no
history of STIs.

If I was a burglar, I'd like to know about OAPs, who are on 'care in the
community', and have had treatment in private hospitals.

Or people living alone, going into private hospital for a stay of
several days.

Or cases where a family has private health insurance, and has gone to
the doctor for immunisations for far off places.

If I was a vigilante, I might want people who've been in secure
hospitals.

If I was an identity thief, I'd like details of people who are
'confused'.

If you get access to medical records, you can read a hell of a lot
between the lines.

Today I saw a banner at the side of a shopping street with an ad for GCSE
tuition in Maths (I think) at £5 per hour which just gave a mobile phone
number. I thought that it seemed a fairly good way for someone to make
contact with boys/girls in their late teens.

What sort of standard would be the teaching be at £5 per hour - even if it
were in a class?

Nick

Steve wrote in
:

....


I wouldn't worry, I work on the NHS spine project and it's pretty
tight! ...

So is PNC, CRIS, CRIMINT, MERLIN, CAD/CHS and a shed load of other systems
national and local but nevertheless they can be made to leak like a sieve.

It only needs one corrupt user in the right place and every single security
protocol/system is rendered useless. In a national system of this size,
complexity and type there will be thousands of "right places" and thousands
of potentially corrupt users.

Sorry and I don’t mean any disrespect at all but your blithe assurances are
unconvincing.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

"GB" wrote in message
...

"Harry the Horse" wrote in message
...

it could save ur life, the benefits outweigh etc...

No doubt all true, but why should the decision not be the patient's. If
he
wants to be a paranoid old grouch, in your estimation, why should he not
be
permitted to be so.

Because it will cost an arm and a leg to do it and make the system less
useful. It will require a parallel system of paper records to be kept
purely
to satisfy some peoples' whims.


Perhaps we are forgetting whose money is financing this
project.


Mine, and I want it spent cost-effectively please - or at least as
cost-effectively as the NHS can manage.

And if the information is not there with the patient when they have that op
it might literally cost them the wrong arm or the wrong leg.

Nick

"GB" wrote in message
...

"Harry the Horse" wrote in message
...

it could save ur life, the benefits outweigh etc...

No doubt all true, but why should the decision not be the patient's. If
he
wants to be a paranoid old grouch, in your estimation, why should he not
be
permitted to be so.

Because it will cost an arm and a leg to do it and make the system less
useful. It will require a parallel system of paper records to be kept
purely
to satisfy some peoples' whims.

It is not a whim. It is a requirement. It's the patient's data.

Perhaps we are forgetting whose money is financing this
project.

Mine, and I want it spent cost-effectively please - or at least as
cost-effectively as the NHS can manage.

It's mine as well, and to spend it to preserve choice is an acceptable
reason.

"David Hearn" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
anthony wrote:
I wanted to make some effort towards preventing my personal medical
details being uploaded on the new NHS computer. Anybody on this group
already started taking steps? If so please let me know what you think
is a good course of action. Thanks

I wouldn't worry, I work on the NHS spine project and it's pretty tight!
I know mistakes will happen but no more than ur card folder's contents
being stolen, copied or laughed at....

it could save ur life, the benefits outweigh etc...

So, what is to stop someone in the medical profession looking of a
colleague, relative or friend's medical records?

I'm aware of the logging of accesses and the use of smartcards to identify
the user - however that does nothing to stop the information being viewed
in the first place, it's only really useful for finding out who may have
accessed the information following a complaint - and the patient may never
know about it to complain!

I know at present you're pretty much limited to accessing the records held
by the surgery or hospital and not accessible outside of that as they're
all separate the information is limited.

For example, currently it's pretty easy to check up a friend's (on their
request) blood results. Often far easier than contacting your surgery,
and you get the actual values and not just told "everything's okay" -
which is often what people in the medical profession prefer as they
whether they're borderline or fine etc.

However, it's limited to people working at the hospital where the bloods
were processed.

In future with this new database, I believe it'll be just as possible to
do it across the whole country, thus greatly increasing the opportunity
for this to happen.

Similarly with GP surgeries. I've heard of receptionists who've been told
off for looking at the records of family members registered at their
surgery. For this reason, I know people who refuse to work for the
surgery they're registered at, to stop colleagues from being able to find
out about their medical conditions and history.

Seems pretty sensible.

I have worked in PCT's in London and many of the female employees live
locally so that they can combine working with school runs etc.

When I was FoI Officer there was a request for information about our policy
on gender reassignment (sex change). This clearly was relevant to the person
making the request.

When I showed the request to a colleague before she saw the nature of the
request she observed that she knew the requester as working for the local
council.

Where people work and live in the same area such situations must frequently
arise.

My response to that was to keep requests under lock and key and not record
on the Intranet the identity of the individual making the request.

If this is a problem in London, where I live and work, in rural areas and
islands this must be even more of a problem.

See http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/ncrsguidance for the BMA's take on
this.

Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
...


And if the information is not there with the patient when they have that
op
it might literally cost them the wrong arm or the wrong leg.

Which of course is their look out. Perhaps this country could grow up and
allow people to be responsible for their own choices and not make those
choices for them.

Perhaps we are forgetting whose money is financing this
project.

Mine, and I want it spent cost-effectively please - or at least as
cost-effectively as the NHS can manage.

Is 30 billion pounds is cost effective?

And if the information is not there with the patient when they have that op
it might literally cost them the wrong arm or the wrong leg.

Would you care to suggest a scenario in which this might happen?

Chris Lawrence wrote in
losys.wlan:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Periander wrote:

I can also envisage a whole host of ways in which the database could
be misused, for instance imagine the following mailshot through your
door

I can envisage a whole host of ways that everything can be misused.
The SPINE doesn't work the way you described, but it is a very popular
paranoid tabloid view.

That’s quite a sophisticated ab hominem and certainly one up on the
catch 22 quote heard earlier in this thread, well done. Well I’m sorry
to inform you that it matters not how Spine is designed to work it’s how
it can be abused that is relevant.

There are dozens if not hundreds of supposedly secure systems in use up
and down the country, banks, police, various government departments all
have been misused, all continue to be misused and there is no prospect
of preventing misuse.

It is not even as though Spine is required (at least in the way it is
envisioned), I make no bones about it, I am not connected to the health
service but nevertheless I access peoples medical records often without
their knowledge (quite legitimately I hasten to add) on a very regular
basis, I have no trouble getting anything and everything I ask for. I
have no doubt at all that a doctor or a health worker has even less
difficulty then me in obtaining records - and feeding back information
as and when they need to.

Under the current system abuse is far more difficult - although granted
still possible then it will be under Spine. To abuse the current system
a local record holder has to be subverted and as the vast majority of
record holders are honest there is no guarantee that a potential abuser
could subvert a person in the right place. Under a national system it
doesn’t matter where the corrupt user is situated providing their access
level is sufficient. A good analogy in the national PNC system a corrupt
user in Cornwall can access records associated with anywhere in England,
Scotland, Wales or Northern Island. Indeed there is evidence that this
is done on a not to irregular basis.

However perception is an important part of the
overall usage of the system, so such fears will need to be addressed
regardless.

A sentiment that I agree with, however it is very suggestive of
everything nu-labour ... don’t worry about what’s actually happening,
work on the perception, appearance taking on the role of substance. I
fear that although I do agree with your sentiment I suspect that your
view is to improve appearance rather than improve substance.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander