On Monday, I launched the independent Review of NHS and Social Care IT, along with the Conservative response.
In the response, we made it very clear that the patient should have greater control over their healthcare information and that this information should be stored locally – not in Labour’s insecure national databases.
As a Conservative, I believe that we as patients are best placed to assess who should access our health record and when.
This is why we have launched a nationwide consultation on how much control patients want over their health records and why we have pledged to store health data away from a monolithic central database
We have already made clear that every patient should have the right to view their health record and we are consulting on whether there is scope for patients to contribute to records by adding comments and extra information on their health if they choose to.
What is not yet decided is how patients might access this record (for example through an electronic card or over the internet) and who might provide the system to facilitate this access – does the patient want to choose a provider from a range of suppliers or would they like their record to be held on a system chosen by their GP? We want you the patient to have a say in these decisions.
I am acutely aware of the concerns many have about their data being secure – our Review made clear that we need to offer patients a range of security-guaranteed options for viewing their healthcare data. The Government’s national database of patient records is a huge security risk and that’s why we’re enlisting the public’s help in examining alternative solutions.
What we are very clear on though is that we don’t want any one single provider or private company to have control over patient records – instead, the patient will have the choice over how they access their information.
Healthcare data helps doctors do their job and helps our NHS become more efficient by improving patient care – it is important that we prioritise security at the same time as enabling patients, taxpayers and dedicated professionals to get the most out of our NHS.
Labour’s National Programme for IT went wrong because it used patient information as a tool for the State rather than as a tool for empowering the individual service-user to receive better healthcare. We want to redress the balance and let the patient call the shots.
Comment by MRJABUSH on August 12, 2009 at 12:24 pm
In the old paper system, patients had no control over their data. It is not a question of control, it *is* a question over security. Patient data is not a tool for the state, it is a tool for healthcare professionals. Let’s face it; how many patients would even be able to read their data?
Monolithic databases are a myth. Databases *must* live in secure data centres. NHS Trusts are not experts on IT. Please go slowly before pronouncing policy and not discard baby with bath water.
Comment by MrLogic on August 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mr O’Brien,
This could be referred to as the “Let’s all run to the other end of the ship – as this end is sinking” policy.
I understand the argument for federated information across the NHS, however, we shouldn’t underestimate the fact that the National Spine is actually “fitted and working”. The government has spent c.£1bn putting this in place, it provides details for c.70m of us and provides the security “wrapper” for all of the local implementations. Quite why we would attack the only bit of the contract that has been successful is beyond me. Personally, I would federate that data out to providers such as the GoogleHealths and Microsoft HealthVaults of this world from that central base, as we could do this for relative £££s peanuts. I should add that I have held senior roles in the Health Programmes and understand their frailties intensly (More than happy to discuss). I have a wife who has a senior NHS role and a disabled daughter who uses the NHS services frequently. I also have 25+ years in IT and business improvement and would echo the baby and bathwater sentiment of MRJABUSH. PLEASE ASK THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW.
Comment by wulf on August 16, 2009 at 11:38 am
Dear Mr O,Brien
I Think this is a major issue for three reasons
1 the infromation is unlikely to be as secure as the present system.
If young men can hack into the pentagon theywill also be able to hack into the NHS. Other than intented breach of data security there is the much greater danger of incompetence and human failure. We all know of data disks lost. But even at the start of the all this things go wrong . The contractor employed by our local PCT mixed up the adresses of patients to be send information as to how to opt out of the system, inculding my wife’s!
2. The indormation itsself is of dubious quality. Headings in patients records are used differently by different practices. For example “Behaviour problem” might refer to some difficulty at school 20 years ago or indcate some recent much more serious problem. One can easily imagine what effect reading such a heading would have on a casualty nurse dealings with a patient at midnight who might have had a drink……..3. The number of cases were lives are lost because medical information was not immediately available is not known as far as I am aware, however I the DataSystem where treated as any other medical intervention and a estimante of costs/per lives saved was made the number of cases would have to be staggering given the cost.
Comment by su burke on August 16, 2009 at 10:52 pm
NHS needs to provide healthcare that works not support drug companies , As a taxpayer I want my kind of healthcare. At the moment I am paying for herbal treatment THAT WORKS having tried and dumped the tired old handout of penicillin which is every doctors panacea.
Every nutritionist knows that billions are being poured into drugs and farming technologies and food processing companies via the EEC subsidy mechanisms and the end result is bad nutrition and sickness that more drugs cannot cure.
CHANGE THIS