Fleur Fisher wrote:
> Subject: Re: Computing over different Systems
> Thank God there is no capacity to interrogate GP information (OR ANY
> OTHER medical infomation) systems through some centralised data base!!!
> SOUNDS LIKE THE STASI!
I think we need to separate out two quite distinct aspects here;
1 the (technical) provision of a facility which would allow patient
records, or a sub-set of records to be transferred information to
other systems, which might include some form of central registry
2 the provison of a security mechanism to regulate, and where
appropriate to block, such transfers.
>From the work that Alan Hassey and I have done, patients are quite
prepared to see the first of these, provided that the second is
present and forms an integral part of the system. In particular, it
seems that patients are quite relaxed about sub-sets of their records
which are suitably depersonalised, being captured for a central
registry.
>
> What price medical confidentiality and patients' informed consent as to
> who may see their data and providing info. on the purposes for which
> their data will be used???
> Centralised data bases of identifiable patient information accessible by
> all sorts of people (however worthy they deem their purposes) are NOT a
> good idea.
Agreed totally.
> In fact they are an ethically unacceptable idea.
> Data bases such as disease registers should contain de-identified but
> specific linkable data and no, I don't mean the NHS number!
> Only the treating clinician should be able to have access to the code
> that identifies the individual patient.
Again, agreed totally. And that is what something like 60% of
patients think.
>
Mike Wells
***************************************************
* M. Wells *
* 9 Hall Close *
* Bramhope *
* Leeds LS16 9JQ *
***************************************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|