I would have no objection to their seeking patient consent for
identifiable information in the event of an investigation.....
Cheers, Geoff
On 6 February 2013 13:34, Russell Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would be involving the LMC at an early stage in this discussion....
>
> Personal opinon: I agree with you.
>
> Devil's advocate: I can see where they are coming from, they have a
> responsibility to ensure public money is being spent as it should be.
>
> Regards
>
> Russell
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Manor Park Medical Centre
> www.manorparksurgery.com
> Tel 01323482301
> East Sussex Local Medical Committee (Chair)
> www.sslmcs.co.uk/
> Tel 01372389270
> GPC rep East & West Sussex
> @drbrown1970
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On 6 February 2013 13:30, Geoff Schrecker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Our PCT had got used to the idea that we sent in claims with the EMIS
>> rather than the NHS number as the NHS number is an identifier, not a
>> pseudonymiser. Now we have got a cluster managing these things they
>> once again want us to put the NHS number on all claims for
>> immunisations etc. They have produced two arguments: They might need
>> the data one day if there is a fraud investigation, and, it doesn't
>> matter anyway, because as they are all bound by confidentiality
>> agreements it doesn't matter that they see confidential information.
>>
>> I was under the impression that identifiable information should only
>> be used for direct patient care, and that "in case it comes in useful
>> sometime" was not an acceptable reason for holding identifiable
>> information.
>>
>> Should I stand and fight?
>>
>> Cheers, Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> EMIS National User Group: promoting intelligent use of IT
>> www.emisnug.org.uk
>
>
--
EMIS National User Group: promoting intelligent use of IT
www.emisnug.org.uk
|