-
"You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR -
Why wouldn't they? Especially when the whole set of data is already well organised on Hard drives in Mumbai? -
Originally posted by SueEllen View PostCompare and contrast to the usage the SNP have planned for the one in Scotland...The government’s scheme to store patients’ medical information in a single database, which ran into massive problems over confidentiality, is to be scrapped, NHS England has said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...vacy-criticismScottish ministers have been accused of introducing a central database by stealth after civil servants quietly published plans to expand an NHS register to cover all residents and share access with more than 100 public bodies, including HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).Comment
-
Well it's a good day to bury bad news."You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
Most medical professional I know are not that interested in centralised medical records, I don't think there is that big a demand for it.Comment
-
It was so the government could sell our data for research purposes so medical professionals where against it as it reduced trust in them. Those who have dealt with "anonymous" government data have pointed out it isn't that anonymous if you have some rare about you.Originally posted by minestrone View Post"You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
They can sell the data on without it being centralised.Comment
-
It was all sold as - ah, but if you have a serious medical condition - and you are taken ill, then a doctor anywhere can look up your records - that was the whole selling point to the public. The problems wereOriginally posted by minestrone View Post
1. How many people does that really apply to - those with serious medical conditions which would actually benefit from quick access to online medical records.
2. The time it would take for the doctor to work out how to access the bloody records vs just calling the patients surgery and getting the relevant bits faxed through (assuming it was surgery hours).
3. For those really at risk, there are way simpler ways to do it - medical bracelets etc.Comment
-
Doctors completely believe they can wing it with a 10 minute consultation, a stethoscope and a probing finger. Don't confuse them with science, they don't like it.Comment
-
Late one evening about four years ago, suffering from serious abdominal pain, I went to the local A&E. Once I was seen, blood was taken for analysis. Once the results were in and despite lots of evidence to the contrary, the doctor decided it was gastroenteritis and sent me home with a packet of co-codamol (for which a prescription charge bill subsequently appeared in the post).
Fast forwards a couple of days, the pain was not so severe (due to pain relief) but I was feeling dizzy. I popped off to the local Walk-in centre (different health trust area) where the nurse quickly worked out that there were gallbladder issues and offered me two options. Either go to the local A&E (i.e. the original one I had gone to, in a different trust area) or go to the nearest A&E within the same trust area which was much further away, but she was able to pre-refer me to a surgeon so they would be expecting me rather than starting afresh. I decided to go for the referral to the further away.
Being a different hospital in a different trust area, they were unable to obtain the records of my two days prior hospital visit nor see the blood test results, and so everything had to be repeated.
So to me, centralised access to records sounds like a good idea (although I suppose there would be a risk that hospital B accessing the records from hospital A could have created a confirmation bias scenario whereby they decided the original diagnosis was correct rather than the rapidly developing medical emergency inside me).Taking a break from contractingComment
Comment