 |
 |
Interesting editorial in the 17 August issue of the BMJ: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7360/388/a BMJ 2002;325:388 (17 August) Patients should receive copies of letters and summaries In 2000 we attended a meeting to discuss how to improve healthcare delivery within the NHS.1 One of the recommendations was that patients, except in special circumstances, should receive copies of all letters, case summaries, or care plans written by doctors or other clinicians. We also suggested that with the patient's approval such material should be stored on a central server. The suggestion was accepted and published in the NHS Plan. The perceived advantages were threefold. Firstly, patients have a right to know what is being written about them and, if such material is to be electronically stored, then they must be informed under the rules of the Data Protection Act and in accordance with the common law on confidentiality. An electronic health and medical record is vital if we are to develop an integrated NHS. Secondly, to refuse to provide such information if this is the patient's wish is to deny their autonomy. Thirdly, patients are often anonymous when they become acutely ill because their history is unknown to the doctor or clinician who sees them in primary care or when they are admitted to hospital. Access to a summary record either carried by the patient or through the electronic record, would overcome this difficulty. The idea that patients should receive copies of letters and summaries is not new, and research has shown that it meets with high satisfaction from the patients.2 The proposal was approved by the Joint Consultants Committee subject to certain safeguards. We assumed that recommendations from the profession and the Department of Health would follow and the practice would be introduced throughout the NHS without delay. Not so. We have learnt recently that a committee set up under the NHS Modernisation Board has now recommended further research.3 Given the urgency of developing electronic medical and health records we wonder why any particular difficulties in recommending the practice nationally could not be sorted out through "action research" after introducing the policy rather than waiting until 2004. Cyril Chantler, senior associate. King's Fund, London W1G 0AN James Johnson, chairman, Joint Consultants Committee. BMA, London WC1H 9JP 1. Hill A, ed. What's gone wrong with healthcare. London: King's Fund Publishing, London, 2000. 2. Waterston T, Lazaro C. Sending parents outpatient letters about their children. Qual Health Care 1994; 3: 142-146[Abstract]. 3. Department of Health. Department of Health plans to launch a programme of pilot projects. Copying letters to patients initiative. Invitation for proposals. www.doh.gov.uk/patientletters/proposals.htm (accessed 6 August 2002). _________________________________________________________________ Discutez en ligne avec vos amis ! http://messenger.msn.fr ------ACB discussion List Information-------- This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web Site http://www.acb.org.uk List Archives http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/