Am styill a trustee of MedFASH (Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual
Health - formerly known as the BMA Foundation for AIDS).
At our last meeting we debate a BMA consultation paper on developing a new
approach to confidentiality .
It wasclear at that meeting that STI/GUM clinics are dependant on patient
identifiable data being kept truly confidential and not shared
I have been raising this sissue for some time ( eg asked John Hutton this at
the HC 2004 conference at Harrogate in March last year. Unable to answer-
and no response to attempts at follow-up by myself and Alison Hadley- former
press officer to Brook Clinics and for past couple of years has becme a
civil servant leading on teenagepregmancy and sexual Health in the DH).
VERY important to activate the GUM specialists lobby. Excellentif the GPC
and RCGP could do that.
Fleur Fisher
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Bradley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: concerns about the NCR on Radio 4 this morning
> At 14:09 31/03/2005, you wrote:
> >Forgot to say to you Paul in my last e-mail - I am in complete agreement
> >with you - we are all sleeping through it, and those of us that are not
have
> >given up trying to wake up the masses who are slumbering. 8 years to
> >retirement.
> >
> >I think that the recent u-turn with EMIS is a ploy to divert attention
away
> >from things before it is too late and buy them a couple of years.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Paul Bromley
>
> It's only too late when it's too late.
>
> Some practices still own their computer equipment.
>
> The U-turn with EMIS may represent a whole number of things, but we might
> choose to see it as a sign that they cannot impose what will not be
accepted.
>
> If good people inside and outside the profession keep this debate going
> public sensitivity will rise.
>
> There is always a problem going public when the devil is in the detail.
>
> There is no problem with a central database of people entitled to NHS
> treatment. There is no problem with selected information (allergies,
> current medication etc) being pushed, with consent, from local storage to
a
> national database. The government already has all the information about
> NHS prescriptions. It already holds all the information about hospital
> attendances, blood and x-ray results etc. It already holds or has access
> to information about notifiable diseases, and there are multiple cancer
> registries.
>
> The issues that should concern us and that threaten patients are
> confidentiality, information overload, and workload implications.
>
> The GP records hold information that is often more sensitive and personal
> than computerized hospital records.
> Information overload threatens safety.
> Workload threatens patient and doctor safety.
>
> It might be worth liaising with the GUM services to see what
> confidentiality rules they want to see in place.
>
> When that battle is won we should go back to psychiatry and paediatrics
> which are sensitive and difficult but have become areas of real concern.
>
> Julian
>
|